IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.670 of 2025 Date of decision: 24.02.2025 Madan Lal Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Gambhir Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.1646 of 2025 The delay in re-filing the petition is condoned, considering the explanation given in the application, Application is allowed and to stand disposed of. CWP No.670 of 2025 Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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:- “I. The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant of the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 with effect from the initial 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- date of joining instead of Rs. 5000-8100 to the petitioner, along with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @ 9% p.a., in the interest of justice; II. The respondents may very kindly be directed to release revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade along with all 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 his representation dated 23.07.2024 (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 their 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 in accordance with law within a period of eight 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 24th February, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)