IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10542 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.10544 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.10542 of 2025 Kuljeet Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.10544 of 2025 Devi Chand Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Both these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.10542 of 2025 read as under:- “a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP on completion of 4 and 9 years of regular service in the cadre of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 30.07.2013 and 23.07.2018 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014. b) That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 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 dated 01.05.2025 and 27.05.2025, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-5, 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 3 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-5) 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 July 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh