IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11886 of 2025 Decided on: 24th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashwani Kumar and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Pawanish Kr. Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of higher Pay Revision i.e. 40100 as per the mandate of The Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) First Amendment Rules, 2022 from the due date alongwith arrears. (b) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent to decide the request/ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 representations (Annexure P-6 and P-7)) in the interest of justice. (c) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to direct the respondent to release all the Arrears of Higher Pay Revision from the due date along with up to date interest.” 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 representations dated 06.07.2025 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) have 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 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 3 representations of the petitioners dated 06.07.2025 (Annexures P-6 and P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh