IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.136 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.136 of 2025 Reeta Devi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.137 of 2025 Jitender Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.139 of 2025 Usha Devi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.249 of 2025 Anuradha and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.698 of 2025 Seema Devi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shashwat, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned 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 relief in CWP No.136 of 2025 reads as under:- “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 i.e. 03.11.2016, at the minimum revised 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 these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-4, have still not been decided by the respondents/ competent authority. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 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 January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh