IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10834/2025 Decided on: 08.07.2025 Pawan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Tim Saran, 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 the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant benefit of higher pay stage i.e. Rs.41,600 to the petitioner as per notification dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) from the date of completion of 2 years of regular services and consequential increment after completion of one year: (ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant consequential benefits such as increments, dearness allowances, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 salary, gratuity, as the same has been granted to the similar situated employees with 9% 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 dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) has still not been decided by respondent No.2/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 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 respondent No.2/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. 3 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 8th July, 2025(rohit)