IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8850 of 2025 Decided on: 27th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pooja Kumari 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. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy 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:- “I. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners at the higher pay stage of Rs.41,300/- with effect from the date of completion of two years of regular service as Staff Nurse in terms of Notification dated 6.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) with the further direction to release the arrears of salary with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment in the interest of justice. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 II. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners after completion of two years of regular service on contract basis in terms of the regularization policy, in the interest of 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 06.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) 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. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 3 representation of the petitioners dated 06.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) 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 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh