IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3752 of 2025 Decided on: 19th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kumari 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. Karam Pal, Advocate vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy 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. 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.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-9 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. 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 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-9 Colly.) in accordance with law within a 3 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 March 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh