IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.680 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.680 of 2025 Hukam Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.688 of 2025 Chaman Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.692 of 2025 Yashpal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.680 of 2025 reads as under:- “i. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 as was granted to him on his initial appointment on 21.10.1998, with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% p.a., in the interest of justice.” 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 dated 14.10.2024, annexed with the respective writ petitions, 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 3 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