IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5200/2025 Decided on: 09.04.2025 Bhawani Pratap …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant of the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 with effect from the initial date of joining instead of Rs. 5000-8100 to the wife of the petitioner, along with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid/released with interest @ 9% p.a., in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, also in light of judgment dated 4.09.2021 in CWP No. 3341 of 2019 titled: Madan Lal Sharma Versus State of H.P. & Anr.; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (b) The respondents may very kindly be directed to release revised pay scale to the wife of the petitioner with the basic pay grade along with all other consequential benefits;” 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 23.03.2025 Annexure P-5 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 in-definitely 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 aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th April, 2025(rohit)