IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11994 of 2025 Decided on: 25th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madan Lal Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, 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:- “(i). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of bunching of increment earned by the petitioner during the ad-hoc service from the due date with all consequential benefits. (ii). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the arrears on account of benefit of bunching of increments with interest. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (iii). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner after granting the benefit of bunching of increments in accordance with the revised pay scale rules as well as the pay scale rules. The respondents may further be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly from the due date with all consequential benefits.” 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 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) 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 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law within a period of six 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 July 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh