Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.11612, 11634, 11636 & 11738 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.07.2025 1. CWP No.11612 of 2025 Tara. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.11634 of 2025 Mamta Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.11636 of 2025 Lalita Chauhan. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.11738 of 2025 Gyan Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. -2- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.11612 of 2025 read as under:- “i). That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 after taking into account the services rendered by her on contract basis as having been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and she be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 37600/- from the date she has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra). ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay @ Rs. 37600/-w.e.f. the date he had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 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 respective representations with the respective petitions, have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. -3- 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 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 22nd July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)