IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10388 of 2025 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ankita Chauhan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, 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 this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, directions, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date when the petitioner completed their two years service on contractual basis i.e. from the date the regularization policy was liberalized along with all consequential 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 benefits including the benefits 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. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant higher stage of pay in the concerned level of pay matrix i.e. Rs.33,400/- and fix their pay from due date i.e. after completion of two years of service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along-with interest at the rate of 9% PA.” 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 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) 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 21.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) 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