IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2714 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.02.2025 Balbir Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondents No.3, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till date, the petitioner remained in service by calculating the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to pay balance amount of the leave encashment, which became payable to the petitioner after revision of pay scale by calculating the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization. (iii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to pay amount of gratuity, which became payable to the petitioner after revision of pay scale by calculating the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization.” 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 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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 -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, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to 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 28th February, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)