IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10480/2025 Decided on: 01.07.2025 Ajay Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The 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, 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 all consequential benefits, including the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 his representation at 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 employee to come to the Court for redresssal 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 3 otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st July, 2025(rohit)