IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11226/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2025 Kiran Lata …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate vice Ms. Mamta Garg, 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. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That respondent may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Notification dated 6-9-2022 Annexure P-2 to the petitioner by releasing the benefit of revised pay for the contractual period. ii.) That respondents may kindly be order to release the revised pay of 37600/- with other allowances to petitioner strictly as per ratio laid down by this Hon,ble court in CWP 1638/2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another versus State Of H.P (Annexure P-3). iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing to pay the revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioner @ minimum of pay scale (at the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of JBT w.e.f. date of contract appointment of the petitioner till their regularization along with applicable rate of DA. The arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment, on account of revision @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post w.e.f. contract basis w.e.f. 16.11.2018 till their regularization i.e. 18.01.2022. iv) 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 petitioner and against the respondents.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 15.06.2025 (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 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. 3 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 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2025(rohit)