IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11222/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2025 Amita Chauhan & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy 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 respondent May Kindly be Directed to grant the similar benefit of higher stage of Pay as granted by the department in terms of the Judgment passed in CWP 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma Vs State of HP. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus, order or directions directing the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. the date when the Petitioners have completed their two years' service on contract basis i.e. from the date the Regularization Policy was liberalized, along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 and the petitioners be accorded the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by them on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, as has been approved by the Cabinet 14.10.2022. iii.) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend the benefits of the Notifications dated 03.01.2022 & 06.09.2022 and Grant Higher Stage of Pay in the Concerned Level of Pay Matrix i.e. Rs. 37600/- as per Notification dated 06.09.2022 and fix her pay from due date i.e. after completion two years of contractual service with all consequential benefits including the arrears along with interest @ 9%. 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 23.03.2025 at 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 3 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 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2025(rohit)