IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15254 of 2024 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Girdhari Lal & Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent department to grant the benefit of initial pay prior to 31.12.2005 @ Rs. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 6400/- and w.e.f. 01.01.2006 @ Rs. 10300/- to the petitioners with all consequential benefits as per instructions dated 02.12.2023 as well as judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 105/2010, titled as The State of HP v/s Rakesh Chand & others and connected matters (Annexure P-3) and judgment dated 12.08.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Execution Petition No. 423/2023, titled as Jameet Singh & others v/s State of H.P. & others and connected matters (Annexure P-4). ” 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 14.08.2024 (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 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 - 3 - 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 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, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 3, 2025 R.Atal