IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10284 of 2025 Decided on: 27th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vidhya Sagar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur and Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned 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 reliefs:- “I. That the petitioners may be held entitled for the benefit of higher pay in terms of notification dated 06.09.2022, i.e. Rs.37,600/- on completion of two years of regular service i.e. w.e.f. 17.01.2024. II. That the respondents may be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners and to release the benefit of higher pay of Rs.37,600/- in favour of the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioners w.e.f. 17.01.2024 alongwith interest till the date of actual payment.” 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 27.04.2024 and 15.06.2025 (Annexures P-4 Colly and P-8 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. 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 3 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 June 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh