IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.9118 & 9120 of 2025 Decided on 5th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 9118 of 2025 Baldev Chand and Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 9120 of 2025 Dheeraj Kumar and Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, 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. 9118 of 2025:- “i) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the pay of the petitioner my kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6 CPC from the due date alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice..” 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 dated 02.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 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 - 3 - 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 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 June 5, 2025 R.Atal