IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10342 of 2025 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Veena Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Happy Thakur, 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. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant the 2nd benefits of ACP on completion of 09 years of regular service in the cadre of JBT from due date i.e. from the year 2014 with all consequential benefits. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation (Annexure P-3) has 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 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from 3 today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh