IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11136 of 2025 Decided on: 11.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Cheen Singh . ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant 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 the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100 as was granted to them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - very kindly be ordered to be released with interest 9% per annum in the interest of justice as has been granted by this Hon'ble Court in Madan Lal's case. ii. That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner field on 02.07.2025 Annexure P-2 in the interest of justice and fair play..” 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 03.07.2025 ( Annexure P-2) , 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 - 3 - 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 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, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 11, 2025 (R.Atal)