IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11532/2025 Decided on: 18.07.2025 Rajan & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, 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 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 petitioners @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post of Lecturer (SN) Computer Science w.e.f. date of. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 (ii) That case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Hon'ble court on dated 21-03-2024 in CWP No 8148 of 2022, as such entitled for revised emoluments for contract period of the petitioners @ minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post along with all consequential benefits. (III) That 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. 01-01-2016, shall also be paid to the petitioners for the services rendered in the department on contract basis w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till 02.06.2018.” 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 10.06.2025 at 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 3 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 18th July, 2025(rohit)