IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11010 & 11260/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2025 1. CWP No. 11010/2025 Manju Kumari & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 11260/2025 Pankaj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General in both the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No.11010/2025:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondent department by directing them to grant the petitioners the benefits of Higher Pay Stage by fixing the pay of the petitioners @ Rs 40100/- per month as on 12-05-2019 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay by getting fixation @ Rs 40100/- per month as on 12-05-2019 along with interest on delayed payment of higher pay stage benefit. ii.) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, have 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 3 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2025(rohit)