IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.2844 & 2846 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.2844 of 2025 Harpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.2846 of 2025 Amit Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost identical reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 2844 of 2025:- “a) Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of rupee 5480—8925 from the date of appointment with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation be made accordingly in the interest of justice and fair play. b. That the respondents may also be directed to Pay the arrear of consequential benefits with interest from the date of accrual till date of realization.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievances of the petitioners are that their representations Annexure P-9, annexed with the respective writ petitions, have 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 - 3 - 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, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations 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 April 3, 2025 R.Atal