IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3670/2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 18.03.2025 1 CWP No. 3670/2025 Mushu Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 3672/2025 Madhu Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3 CWP No. 3674/2025 Arvind Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4 CWP No. 3676/2025 Natho Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5 CWP No. 3677/2025 Sudarshan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 6 CWP No. 3678/2025 Subhadra Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 7 CWP No. 3679/2025 Gautam Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 8 CWP No. 3680/2025 Chaju Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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. 3670/2025:- “ (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs. 1640- 2925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs. 1500-2700 as was granted to them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice as has been granted by this Hon'ble Court in Madan Lal's case. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner filed on 30.11.2024 Annexure P-2 in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions at Annexure P-2, 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 4 aforesaid representation(s) 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 18th March, 2025(rohit)