IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.8982, 8986 & 8992/2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 1. CWP No. 8982/2025 Niraj Jamwal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 8986/2025 Tej Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 8992/2025 Rajeev Kaushal & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Notice. Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 8982/2025:- “(a) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 41,300/- from the date the petitioner has completed two years of regular service i.e. 03.07.2019 in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 4830/2023 titled Inder Singh Thakur & Ors versus State of H.P & others and further the respondents be directed that the pay of the petitioner be re-fixed w.e.f 03.07.2019 and the respondents be directed to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. (b) That the respondents may also be directed to release the arrears of pay after re-fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs.41300/- w.e.f. the date the petitioner completed two years of regular service i.e. 03.07.2019 alongwith interest @9% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, have 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 3 aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redresssal 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 above, the instant petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th May, 2025(rohit)