IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10378 of 2025 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Balbir Singh and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant 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 respondents may kindly be directed to grant third financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of service of petitioners, with all consequential benefits. ii. That the respondents may kindly be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of third financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations each dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-3 Colly) 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 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 representations of the petitioners dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-3 Colly) in accordance with law within a period 3 of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. 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