IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10412/2023 Decided on: 08.01.2025 Narain Dutt & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “ (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned rejection order 27.12.2010 dated (annexure P-5) may be quashed and set aside; (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and the petitioners be held entitled for the benefit of their adhoc service towards bunching and stagnation scale with effect from due date and the pay fixation of petitioners be ordered to be reaffixed with all consequential benefits after granting benefits of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 bunching of increments in view of judgment passed in CWPOA 7531 of 2019 titled Madan Lal versus State of HP(Annexure P-5) in the interest of justice and fair play. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrear accrued on account of granting benefits of bunching of increments with interest @ 12% interest till the date of realization.” 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 representation dated 29.04.2023 (Annexure P- 10) 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 3 aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 08th January 2025(rohit)