IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.10214 & 10246 of 2025 Decided on: 26th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.10214 of 2025 Vivek Kumar ` ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.10246 of 2025 Vijay Pal & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, 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 both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 10214 of 2025:- “i) That respondent May kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Notification dated 6-9-2022 Annexure P-2 to the petitioner by releasing the benefit of revised pay for the contractual period. ii.) That respondents may kindly be order to release the revised pay of 40100/- with other allowances to petitioner strictly as per ratio laid down by this Hon,ble court in CWP 1638/2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another versus State Of H.P (Annexure P-3). iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioner @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of TGT w.e.f. date of contract appointment of the petitioner till their regularization along with /applicable rate of DA. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post w.e.f. contract basis w.e.f. 19.11.2018 till their regularization i.e. 17.01.2022..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The - 3 - 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 to the petitioners. - 4 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 26, 2025 Judge R.Atal