IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9794 of 2025 Decided on: 18th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mast Ram Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky, Advocate vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and the petitioners be held entitled for the benefit of their adhoc service towards bunching and stagnation scale with effect from due date and the pay fixation of petitioners be ordered to be reaffixed with all consequential benefits after granting benefits of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 bunching of increments in view of judgment passed in CWPOA 7531 of 2019 titled Madan Lal versus State of HP in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrear accrued on account of granting benefits of bunching of increments with interest @ 12% interest till the date of realization.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh