IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10806 of 2025 Decided on: 07.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar . ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant 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:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of financial up gradation under ACPS (4-9-14) time scales/enhancement after their having completed 4 years of service at par with their counterparts from the due date. ii. That the respondents may further be directed to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - grant all consequential benefits of ACPS from the year 1.06.2021 in favour of the petitioners.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 10.06.2025 ( Annexure P-3) , 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 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 - 3 - 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 7, 2025 (R.Atal)