IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11086 of 2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Vikas & anr . ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That act of the respondents in not giving the higher pay scale after two years of regular services by the petitioner may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - this Hon'ble Court vide judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on dated 07-04-2025 in CW.P. No.4830&2632 Of 2023. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of notifications dated 03.01.2022 and 06.09.2022 to the petitioners. Their pay be accordingly re-fixed from due dates and consequential benefits be granted in favor of the petitioners in accordance with law and aforesaid notifications.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that their representation dated 19.05.2025 (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 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 10, 2025 (R.Atal)