IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10344 of 2025 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seema Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Pawanish Kr. Shukla, Advocate. 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 the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents, whereby, petitioner has been denied the benefit of Higher Pay Revision, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of jurisprudence. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (b) That the writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of higher Pay Revision i.e. 37,600/- after two year regular service as a JBT in view of The Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022. (c) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent to decide the request/ representations (Annexure P-6) in the interest of justice. (d) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent to release all the Arrears of Higher Pay Revision from the due date along with up to date interest.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 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 3 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 petitioner dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 June 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh