IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9370 of 2025 Decided on 5th June , 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Rahul ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.H.S.Rangra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leean Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. H.S.Rangra, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - “I. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner at the higher pay stage of ₴30,500/- with effect from the date of completion of two years of regular service as Clerk 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. Il. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner 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 petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 29.01.2025 (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 - 3 - 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 5, 2025 R.Atal