IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.16714, 16726, 16728 & 16729 of 2024 Date of decision: 01.01.2025 1. CWP No.16714 of 2024 Prakash Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.16726 of 2024 Rajinder Krishan & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.16728 of 2024 Meenakshi Sood & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.16729 of 2024 Ramesh Chand. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petitions have been ﬁled for the grant of following substantive relief(s) extracted from one of the writ petitions:- “a). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents, thereby directing them to grant pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/- from the date oftheir initial appointment as Shastri. b). That the respondents be further directed tore-ﬁx the pay of the petitioners after grant of pay scale of Rs.5480- 8925/- from initial date, thereafter, re-ﬁx their pay after grant of annual increments and also revise the beneﬁts of Assured Career Progressions Scheme granted to them and calculate and pay the arrears thereof. With the further direction to them, to pay the arrears of the same along with 10 % interest from the date when it fell due to the petitioner till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.” 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 -3- 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 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 1st January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)

MEENAKSHI SOOD AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

Judgment text