IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7814 & 7816 of 2025 Decided on: 13th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.7814 of 2025 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.7816 of 2025 Pawan Kumar Verma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Rocky, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additonal Advocate 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 in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - almost common relief, which has been extracted from CWP No. 7814 of 2025:- “i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefits of ACP on completion of 14 years of regular service with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 and respondent department be directed to modify the pay fixation accordingly in view of judgment passed in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 Sanjay Kumar versus State of HP. ii. That the arrear accrued on account of consequential benefits may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest @2% from the date of accrual till the date of realization 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 respective representations dated 14.02.2025 and 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), 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 - 3 - 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 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, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 13, 2025 R.Atal