IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8004 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 16th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.8004 of 2025 Munish Singh Rana …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.8006 of 2025 Sangeeta Negi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.8008 of 2025 Ritu Rattan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.8010 of 2025 Sangeeta Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 For the Petitioners: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional 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. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.8004 of 2025 read as under:- “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 2nd financial enhancement/up-gradation under the new ACPS (4-9-14) on the completion of 9 years of regular service. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the consequential arrear along with interest @ 9% per annum from due date to till the date of realization.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations, annexed with the writ petitions as Annexure P-6, 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 3 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 the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-6) 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 May 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh