1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10306 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.06.2025 Shakat Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowali and Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant 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:- “I. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Higher stage of pay to the petitioner w.e.f., completion of two years of regular service along with all consequential benefits including arrears; II. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to extend the benefits of judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No. 1638/2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors., with all consequential benefits; -2- III. That the respondent-dept. may very kindly be directed to decide the representation submitted by the Petitioner, within time bound manner;” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 01.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) 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 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 -3- petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 27th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)