IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10640 of 2025 Decided on: 04.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Sunita . ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant third financial enhancement/up gradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of service w.e.f.December, 2013 with all 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - consequential benefits with interest 12% per annum, in view of the judgment dated 01.11.2023 as CWPOA no. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar versus State of H.P and others", CWPOA no. 5545 of 2020 titled as "Shashi Kant versus State of H.P and others" CWPOA no. 5553 of 2020 titled as "Som Dutt versus State of H.P and others" and CWPOA no. 5561 of 2020 titled as "Jai Parkash versus State of H.P and others" (Annexure P-1) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice. b) That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of third financial up gradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% pa. c). That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-2 dated 17.12.2024 during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice.…;.” 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 dated 17.12.2024 ( Annexure P-2) , 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 - 3 - 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 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 4, 2025 (R.Atal)