IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.296 of 2025 Date of decision: 06.01.2025 Om Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy 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(s):- “i). That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to grant the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 31,240/-(Petitioners No.1 & 2) and 30500/-(Petitioner No.3) respectively from the date they have completed two years of regular service, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma and Sanjeev Vardhan Case (Supra). ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the arrears of pay after fixing his pay Rs.31,240/- and Rs. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 30500/- w.e.f. the date they had completed two years of regular service along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 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 representations stated to be filed in December 2024(Annexure P-4 Colly.) 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 time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redressal of their 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. -3- 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is 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 eight weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 6th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)