IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2658 and 2660/2025 Decided on: 28.03.2025 1 CWP No. 2658/2025 Mangal Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 2660/2025 Hem Raj Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Aruna Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent(s). 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 2658/2025:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 “I. The respondents may kindly be directed to Grant the revised pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/-to the petitioner, with effect from 01.04.1999, from the date of initial appointment of petitioner, as has 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. II. The respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pension of the petitioner after reaffixing the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 w.e.f 01,04,1999, and further revision time to time till date and to release all revised pay scale and arrear of pay and pension to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade, increased increment etc. along with all other consequential benefits.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representation(s), annexed with the respective petition(s) at Annexure P-7, have still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petitions 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 redresssal 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 3 otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, the instant petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th March, 2025(rohit)