IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.412, 410, 414, 416 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 1. CWP No.412 of 2025 Laxmi Devi ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.410 of 2025 Gita Ram ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.414 of 2025 Sneh Lata ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.416 of 2025 Sukh Chain ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners : Mr. Gambhir Singh, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.412 of 2025 read as under:- “I. The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant of the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 with effect from the initial date of joining instead of Rs. 5000-8100 to the petitioner, along with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @ 9% p.a., in the interest of justice; II. The respondents may very kindly be directed to release revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade 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 -3- 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 07th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)