IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3974 of 2025 Decided on: 6th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pritam Singh 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: Ms. Saroj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. P.K. Nadda, learned 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:- “(A) That the writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the respondent department to regularize the petitioners as per the Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 immediately with due date i.e. 31.12.2021 or further directions may kindly be issued to regularize the service of petitioners as per his counterparts in other JSV Circle (Jal Shakti Vibhag Circle) as per the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court i.e. Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (B) The respondent may kindly be directed to remove anomaly in pay scale of the petitioners and the respondent may kindly be directed to provide the higher stage of Pay i.e. Rs.22,700/- Level-3 w.e.f. January, 2024. (C) That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the seniority, pay fixation and other consequential benefits as per the analogy of other similarly situated persons. (D) That the representation of the petitioners may kindly be decided in light of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in time bound manner.” 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 representations each dated 05.01.2025 (Annexure P-10 Colly.) 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 also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 3 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 05.01.2025 (Annexure P-10 Colly.) in accordance with law within a period of six 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 May 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh