IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9444/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 06.06.2025 1. CWP No.9444/2025 Manesh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors.. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 9450/2025 Kushal Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 9454/2025 Kapil …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No. 9457/2025 Lakshay Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No. 9460/2025 Mukul Bhabra …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 6. CWP No. 9462/2025 Farinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 7. CWP No. 9464/2025 Kewal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 8. CWP No. 9466/2025 Anoop Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 9. CWP No. 9468/2025 Deepika …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 10. CWP No. 9470/2025 Mohit Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 11. CWP No. 9515/2025 Rohit Kumar …Petitioner Versus 3 State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rocky and Ravinder Chandel Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 9444/2025:- “ Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to extend the benefit of revised Pay Rules, 2022 amended on 06.09.2022 by inserting Rule 7-Aby granting higher stage of pay for some categories, posts as per schedule-II after completion of two years of regular service by revising the salary (Sr. No.37 Forest Guard) Rs.21300/- to Rs.30400/- as per the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma &Anr. V/s State of H.P. & Ors. (Annexure P- 3)in the interest of justice.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 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 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). 5 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th June, 2025(rohit)