IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.15488 of 2024 Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kanwar Singh and Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and 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 the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - which was revised as Rs. 10300-34800+4400 Grade Pay, as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100 as were granted to them on their initial appointment on 04.09.2003 & 13.08.2002 with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @ 9% p.a, in the interest of justice..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that their representation dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) 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 - 3 - 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 8, 2025 R.Atal