IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16028 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 4th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16028 of 2024 Yagya Dutt Awasthi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16042 of 2024 Raj Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16044 of 2024 Ganesh Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16050 of 2024 Prithi Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 For the Petitioners: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, 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. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.16028 of 2024 read as under:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 as was granted to them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice as has been granted by this Hon’ble Court in Madan Lal’s case. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner filed on 23.09.2024 Annexure P-2 in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-2, have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 3 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 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, these 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh