IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9328 of 2025 and connected matters. Decided on: 5th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.9328 of 2025 Manohar Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.9332 of 2025 Shambhu Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No.9334 of 2025 Prem Dass ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.9338 of 2025 Kamal Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 5. CWP No.9340 of 2025 Piar Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ - 2 - Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 9328 of 2025:- “i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 1500-2700 as was granted to him on his initial appointment on 01.04.1994, with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% p.a., in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 3 - involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ 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 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated - 4 - to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 5, 2025 Judge R.Atal