IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.7820, 7822 & 7824/2025 Decided on: 14.05.2025 1. CWP No. 7820/2025 Madan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 7822/2025 Santosh Kumari & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 7824/2025 Dinesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, 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. 7820/2025:- (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 @12% from the date of accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) 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 welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the 3 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(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th May, 2025(rohit)