IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9964 of 2025 Decided on: 21st June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Neeta Dhawan & Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefit of higher stage of pay of Rs. 40100/- from the date the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - service in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 4830/2023 titled Inder Singh Thakur & Ors versus State of H.P & others and further the respondents be directed that the pay of the petitioners be re-fixed from the date the petitioners have completed two years of their respective regular service and the respondents be directed 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 re-fixing the pay of the petitioners at Rs. 40100/- from the date the petitioners completed two years of their respective regular service along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 02.06.2025 [Annexure P2 (colly)] 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. - 3 - 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 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