IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1880 of 2025 Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Jagdish Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : 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. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “1) The respondents may kindly be directed to Grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/-to the petitioner, with effect from 22.08.1996 from the date of regular appointment of petitioner, as has been allowed to other counter-parts with further pay revision from time-to-time alongwith arrears and all other consequential benefits with upto date interest @ 9% per annum, in the interest of justice. 2) The respondents may be directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f 22.08.1996 and further revision time to time till date and to release all revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- basic pay grade, increased increment etc. along with all other consequential benefits.” 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 (Annexure P-7) 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 their 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, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to -3- 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 17th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)