IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4480 of 2025 Decided on: 27th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krishana Kumari 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. Neeraj Kumar Shashwat, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant 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:- “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 of period 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.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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 representation dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) has 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 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 representation of the petitioners dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law within a period of six 3 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 March 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh