IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9330 & 9336 of 2025 Decided on: 5th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.9330 of 2025 Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.9336 of 2025 Madhu Bala ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respective 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. 9330 of 2025:- “i) That the respondents may be directed to grant third financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of 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 inters @12% per annum.” 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 07.03.2025 and 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), 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 June 5, 2025 Judge R.Atal