IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.9976 & 9978 of 2025 Decided on 21st June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 9976 of 2025 Manisha ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 9978 of 2025 Gitanjali & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 9976 of 2025:- “1) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 31200/- from the date the petitioner has completed two years of regular service i.e. 01.04.2024 as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638/2024 titled Mohit Sharma versus State of H.P & others. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioners all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. That the respondents may also be directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 31200/- w.e.f the date the petitioner completed two years of regular service i.e. 01.04.2024 along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations Annexure P-2, 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 - 3 - 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 21, 2025 R.Atal