IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3144 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 Anil Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the pay of the petitioner and to further protect the pay of the petitioner as under FR 22 (1)(a)(i) to next stage higher than lastly drawn to the post of Lecturers on promotion as Headmasters. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to provide all consequential and financial benefits to the petitioner as per the fresh re-fixation of pay and pension. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 07.07.2022 in the CWP No. 842 of 2017 titled as "State of H.P. and Others Versus Sardari Lal and Another".” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-VIII) 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 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. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to -3- consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 8th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)