IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.1914 & 1922 of 2025 Decided on: 22nd March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 1914 of 2025 Phuntsok Gyaltsen ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 1922 of 2025 Lekh Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocates. 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. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the matters. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No. 1914 of 2025:- “ A. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5480- 8925 from date of his initial appointment and subsequently for pay scale of Rs. 10830 Plus 3600 grade pay w.e.f.01.01.2006 along with other consequential benefits i.e. monetary benefits, pay fixation, ACP's Arrearsetc. B. The respondents may be further directed to release the consequential benefits along with arrears along with interest @9 interest p.a.” 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 representations dated 12.09.2024 and 16.10.2024 (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 March 22, 2025 R.Atal