IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.7266/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 05.05.2025 1 CWP No. 7266/2025 Rajinder Kumar Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 7286/2025 Ram Pal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3 CWP No. 7288/2025 Neeru Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4 CWP No. 7268/2025 Kusum Kumari Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5 CWP No. 7270/2025 Sudershan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 6 CWP No. 7272/2025 Ambika Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 7 CWP No. 7274/2025 Neelam Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 8 CWP No. 7284/2025 Shayam Sunder & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 9 CWP No. 7282/2025 Surinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 10 CWP No. 7280/2025 Rakesh Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 11 CWP No. 7278/2025 Chaman Lal & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 12 CWP No. 7276/2025 Suman …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, 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 respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 7266/2025:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant 3rd financial enhancement/up-gradation under the new ACPS (4-9-14) on the completion of 14 years of regular. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum from due date to till the date of realization.” 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, 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 4 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner, 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 05th May, 2025(rohit)