IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10442 of 2025 Decided on: 30th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr.Rangil Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to grant to the Petitioner the benefit of higher pay of Rs. 41,600/- from the date the Petitioner completed two years of regular service, i.e., 28.01.2024, in terms of the Notification dated 06.09.2022, and in light of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma vs. State of H.P. and Others, in the interest of justice; ii. Issue order or directions to the Respondents to release the arrears of pay after re-fixing the pay of the Petitioner @ Rs. 41600/- from the date the Petitioner completed two years of his regular service alongwith 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 his representation 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 - 3 - 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 June 30, 2025 R.Atal