IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4026 & 4028 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.4026 of 2025 Rakesh Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.4028 of 2025 Parma Nand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Anirudh 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 common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 4026 of 2025:- “a. To direct respondents to grant the petitioner regular pay Scale of Rs. 5,480-8,925 + allowances, as is legally prescribed to the post of Shastri teachers, instead of Rs. 5,000-8,100 + allowances, from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 06.02.2001 with all the consequential benefits and the arrears accrued there under with interest @9% per annum till realisation of the amount in the interest of justice and fair play. b. To decide the representation in a time bound manner..” 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 (Annexure P-4), 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 employee to come to the Court for redressal of his grievances. - 3 - 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, this writ petition is 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 May 8, 2025 R.Atal