1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10596 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Nisha Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant 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 relief:- “i). That respondent May kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Notification dated 6-9-2022 Annexure P-2 to the petitioner by releasing the benefit of revised pay for the contractual period. ii.) That respondents may kindly be order to release the revised pay of 40100/- with other allowances to petitioner strictly as per ratio laid down by this Hon,ble court in CWP 1638/2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another versus State Of H.P (Annexure P-3). iii.) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioner @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the -2- same post w.e.f. date of contract appointment of the petitioner till their regularization along with applicable rate of DA. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post w.e.f. contract basis w.e.f. date of appointment to till their regularization i.e. 10.01.2022.” 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 08.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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 also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. -3- 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 3rd July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)