IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7608 of 2025 Decided on: 8th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Manohar Lal Bhardwaj ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma and Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may be directed to grant third financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - service of petitioner, with all consequential benefits. ii. That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of third financial upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum” 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 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), 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 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. - 3 - 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 8, 2025 R.Atal