IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2964 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.3076 of 2025 Decided on: 7th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.2964 of 2025 Arvind Sharma and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.3076 of 2025 Savita Verma 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. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.2964 of 2025 reads as under:- “A. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the Respondents to grant and allow the increments at the admissible rate in favour of the Petitioners w.e.f. 2000-2007 by adding the same to their basic pay at the time of their regularization.” 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, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-10, 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, 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 April 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh