IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1288 of 2025 Decided on: 4th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Dhan Pal Mahajan ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sikand Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate 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 reliefs:- “(i That a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the action of the Respondents, whereby 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - the pay of the petitioner at the time of his promotion as Head Master has been fixed by treating his feeder cadre as TGT and his pay has been reduced in an illegal and arbitrary manner and in violation to FR22(I)(a)(1). ii) That a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner at a stage next above the stage as he was drawing on the post of Lecturer at the time of his promotion as Headmaster with all consequential arrears along with interest @ 9% Ρ.Α.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), 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 - 3 - 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 4, 2025 R.Atal