IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10450 of 2025 Decided on: 01.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sarojni . ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) 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 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 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. ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 31200/- and fix their pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of regular service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest 9%. iii. That the due and admissible arrear be paid to the petitioner along with interest and other consequential benefits.” 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 12.05.2025 ( 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 - 3 - 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 1, 2025 (R.Atal)