IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.654 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagdish Chand and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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 reliefs:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay band of Rs. 10,300-34,800+4400 grade Pay with. additional 3% promotional increment w.e.f 01.10.2012, as has been done with the incumbents promoted to the post of Head Teacher after 01.10.2012, with all consequential benefits and interest 9% per annum, in view of the judgment dated 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 07.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2500/2021 & connected matter, titled as Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors., when the respondents vide orders dated 19.09.2023 & 21/22.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice. b) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-3 dated 08.11.2024 during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representations dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-3 Colly.) preferred by them 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 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 3 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 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 petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh