IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3108 & 3110/2025 Decided on:06.03.2025 CWP No. 3108/2025 Purshotam Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. CWP No. 3110/2025 Dharam Pal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, proxy counsel Mr. Gambhir Singh, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 3108/2025:-:- “1. The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant of the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 with effect from the initial date of joining instead of Rs. 5000-8100 to the petitioner, along with all 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @9% p.a., in the interest of justice; 2. The respondents may very kindly be directed to release revised pay scale to the Petitioner with the basic pay grade along with all other consequential benefits.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective 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 redresssal 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 above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the 3 aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March, 06 2025(rohit)