IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11508/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 18.07.2025 1. CWP No. 11508/2025 Kamal Dev & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 11524/2025 Surender Sharma & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 11527/2025 Amar Chand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No. 11528/2025 Lalit Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No. 11529/2025 Sudershan Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 6. CWP No. 11544/2025 Ramesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2 7. CWP No. 11547/2025 Uttam Chand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 8. CWP No. 11560/2025 Aparajita & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 9. CWP No. 11562/2025 Yatishwar Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Kush Sharma, in all the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 11508/2025:- “i. That to issue appropriate Writ, Orders or Directions directing the respondents to extend benefits/grant of revised Pay band+Grade pay for the contract period and for payment of the difference of emoluments between the minimum of Pay band+Grade pay paid to them for period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018 in view of the Judgment dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure P-1). ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant arrears @ 12% p.a. in lieu of grant of revised pay band + grade pay for the contract period and for payment of the difference of emoluments between the minimum of Pay band+Grade pay paid to them and to which Petitioners are entitled w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2018.” 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 petitions 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 4 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 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 18th July, 2025(rohit)