IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.11406 & 11410 of 2025 Decided on: 17.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.11406 of 2025 Kamlesh Kumar & Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.11410 of 2025 Sunil Sharma & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 11406 of 2025:- “i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set aside the notification dated 12.01.2022 i.e. Annexure P-8 as far as it provide the revised emoluments of contract employees 60% of minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post. ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents by directing them to fix and pay the contract pay arrears of the petitioners w.e.f. 01-01-2016 (or w.e.f. the date of appointment in case of petitioner no.-2) at revised rate of initial start of pay scale of the petitioner's post i.e. Rs43000 + 3% annual hike on this,till the regularization of the petitioners. The pay arrears with interests at market rate on delay payment of arrears may also be paid to the petitioners.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, dated 22.06.2025 (Annexure P-13) have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the - 3 - 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 unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations 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 July 17, 2025 Judge R.Atal