IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13488 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Abhishek Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, 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 relief:- “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 him on contract basis as haying been appointed prior to 03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide Notification dated 06.09.2022, and he be granted the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 40100/- from the date he has completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ii). That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay Rs. 40100/- w.e.f. the date he had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 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 (Annexure P-5) 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 -3- 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 25th August, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)