IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4142 and 4144/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2025 1 CWP No. 4142/2025 Satya Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors.. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 4144/2025 Mool Dutt …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. Seema Guleria, Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent(s). 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 4142/2025:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 “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 her initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued 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 16.02.2025 Annexure P-2 in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioners, 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 3 otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of above, these instant petitions are disposed of by directing 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th March, 2025(rohit)