IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3000 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.3002 of 2025 Decided on: 4th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.3000 of 2025 Tulsi Devi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.3002 of 2025 Bimla Devi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Skandh Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, 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 reliefs in CWP No.3000 of 2025 read as under:- “a. Writ in nature of the mandamus may be issued directing the respondent department to pay the petitioner revised pay scale of rupee 5480-8925 from the date of appointment with further revision of pay scale from time to time and pay fixation be made accordingly in the interest of justice and fair play. b. That the respondents may also be directed to Pay the arrear of consequential benefits with interest from the date of accrual till date of realization.” 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-9, 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 3 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, 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 March 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh