IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2674 of 2025 Decided on: 1st April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meena Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Vaid, 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 the grant of following substantive relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed by issuing an appropriate Writ Direction or Order the respondents be directed to pay the revised pay scale to the petitioners i.e. Rs.5480-8925 from the first date of her entitlement with its revisions from time to time and with the further direction to pay the arrears due to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when the amount fell due till the date of the actual payment is made to the petitioner. It is further prayed that the respondents be 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 directed to make the payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within a time bound period. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to produce the entire service record of the petitioners along with the record of the similarly situated persons to whom the revised pay scale has been released with all its revisions from time to time.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 27.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 27.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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 April 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh