IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.1512, 1514, 3174, 3178 & 3180 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.03.2025 1. CWP No.1512 of 2025 Kulbhushan Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.1514 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.3174 of 2025 Parvati Kashyap. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.3178 of 2025 Jasmati Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 5. CWP No.3180 of 2025 Anita Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- For the petitioners : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.1512 of 2025 read as under:- “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 grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations 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 -3- 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 unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)