IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.2792, 2794 & 2796 of 2025 Date of decision: 02.04.2025 1. CWP No.2792 of 2025 Bhawani Charan. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.2794 of 2025 Raj Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.2796 of 2025 Gopal Verma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners : Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : 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. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.2794 of 2025 read as under:- “1) The respondents may kindly be directed to Grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/-to the petitioner, with effect from 1.07.1998,from the date of initial 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 1.07.1998 and further revision time to time till date and to release all revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade, increased increment etc. along with all other consequential benefits.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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 2nd April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)