IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1920 of 2025 Date of decision: 21.03.2025 Daulat Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. 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. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 from date of his initial appointment and subsequently for pay scale of Rs. 10830 Plus 3600 grade pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along with other consequential benefits i.e. monetary benefits, pay fixation, ACP's Arrears etc. B. The respondents may be further directed to release the consequential benefits along with arrears along with interest @ 9% interest p.a.” 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 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 12.09.2024 (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 redressal of their 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight -3- weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 21st March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)