Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tara vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 22 July, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos.11612, 11634,
11636 & 11738 of 2025
.
Date of decision: 22.07.2025
1. CWP No.11612 of 2025
Tara. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents.
2. CWP No.11634 of 2025
Mamta Devi. r ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents.
3. CWP No.11636 of 2025
Lalita Chauhan. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents.
Gyan Singh. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners : Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
.
General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of
almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP
No.11612 of 2025 read as under:-
"i). r to
That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be
issued directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of
Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules,
2022 after taking into account the services rendered by
her on contract basis as having been appointed prior to
03.01.2022, in terms of Rule 7A, as incorporated vide
Notification dated 06.09.2022, and she be granted the
Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 37600/- from the date she has
completed two years of regular service, as has been held
by the Hon'ble High Court in Mohit Sharma Case (Supra).
ii) That the respondents be also directed to release the
arrears of pay after fixing his pay @ Rs. 37600/-w.e.f. the
date he had completed two years of regular service along
with interest @ 9% p.a."
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 respective
representations with the respective petitions, 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed
of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider
and decide the respective 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.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
22nd July, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)
