1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10102 of 2025 Date of decision: 24.06.2025 Anuradha & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Nandita Guleria, Advocate, vice Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):- “i.) That respondent May Kindly be Directed to grant the similar benefit of higher stage of Pay as granted by the department in terms of the Judgment passed in CWP 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma Vs State of HP. ii.) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, order or directions directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. the date when the Petitioner have completed their two years' service on contract basis i.e. from the date the Regularization Policy was liberalized, -2- along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 and the petitioner be accorded the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, as has been approved by the Cabinet on 14.10.2022. iii.) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 41300/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 and fix higher pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of contractual service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @ 9%.” 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 representation dated 23.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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 employee to come to the Court for redressal of their grievances. This is also the purport and object of the -3- 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 petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 24th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)