IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8692 of 2025 Decided on: 26th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajender Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at higher pay stage of Rs.37600/- from the date of completion of 02 years regular service in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022, with direction to the respondents to release the arrear of salary with all consequential benefits including interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed period payment, including the benefit Himachal Pradesh 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, as has been approved by the Cabinet on 14.10.2022, in the interest of law and justice. (b) That the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 08.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), in the light of the judgment passed in CWP No.1638/2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) and also stand implemented on 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) in the interest of law and justice.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 08.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petition has already been decided, it is expected from the welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redressal of his grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State. Not taking decision on the representation for months together would not only give rise to unnecessary multiplication of the litigation, but would also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 3 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 08.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 26, 2025 Judge Mukesh