IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16066 of 2024 Decided on: 10th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sanjna Kumari and Ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, 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 relief:- “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners from the eligible date of period at the minimum revised 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - pay scale of Rs.38,100 in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, effective from 01.01.2016, and pay all associated arrears..” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-4), 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 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 petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 10, 2025 R.Atal