IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10910 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anil Kumar Sharma 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. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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 respondents may kindly be directed to grant/ release the second & third Financial enhancement/up- gradation under the new Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) on completion of 9 & 14 years of service, since the years 2013, 2014 & 2015 and 2018-2019 & 2020 respectively, along with interest on requisite arrears in the interest of justice and fair play. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (II) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the representation (Vide Annexure P-7 Colly) and to grant & release all benefits as such, as has been done/granted after Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No.5536/2020 along with connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Others.” 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 18.05.2025 (Annexure P-7 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 3 authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 18.05.2025 (Annexure P-7 Colly) in accordance with law within a period 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 July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh