IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10863 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagdev Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Sharma and Mr. Rocky, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned 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. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent for extending the benefits of Revised Pay Rules 2022 by revising the fixed salary of contractual period to minimum of revised pay band + Grade Pay along with such hike i.e Level 9 (Rs.35,600) in view of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Judgment passed in CWP No.2056 of 2023 titled as Ghanshyam Dass Versus State Of HP & Ors. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to extend the benefit of revised Pay Rules, 2022 amended on 06.09.2022 by inserting Rule 7-A by granting higher stage of pay for some categories, posts as per schedule-II after completion of two years of regular service by revising the salary (Sr. No.66 Anganwari Supervisor) Rs.35600/- to Rs.37800/- as per the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in cWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. V/s State of H.P. & Ors. in the interest of justice.” 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 25.05.2025 (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 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. 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 dated 25.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) 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 July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh