IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11820 of 2025 Decided on: 23.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Satbir Singh . ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent for extending the benefits of Revised Pay Rules 2022 by revising the fixed salary of contractual period to minimum of revised pay band + Grade Pay along with such hike i.e Level 10(Rs.38,100) in view of Judgement passed in CWP No.2056 of 2023 titled as Ghanshyam Dass 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Versus State Of HP & Ors. b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to extend the benefit of revised Pay Rules, 2022 amended on 06.09.2022 by inserting Rule 7-A by granting higher stage of pay for some categories, posts as per schedule-Il after completion of two years of regular service by revising the salary (Sr. No.30 TGT) Rs.38100/. to Rs.41600/- as per the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. V/s State of H. P. & Ors. in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 31.05.2025 ( Annexure P-7) , 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 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 - 3 - 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, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 23, 2025 (R.Atal)