IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10930 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.10930 of 2025 Saroj Kumari and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.10936 of 2025 Khem Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.10938 of 2025 Umesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.10930 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 3rd ACP on completion of 14 years of regular service in the cadre of JBT from due date i.e., from the year 2013 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 direct 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, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexures P-2, P-5 & P-6, 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 3 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 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh