IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.10742 & 10748 of 2025 Decided on: 07.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 10742 of 2025 Suresh Chand ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 10748 of 2025 Amba Dutt ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rocky, Advocate vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms.Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the matters. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost identical reliefs, which have been reproduced from CWP No.10742 of 2025:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefits of ACP on completion of 9 years of regular service with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 and respondent department be directed to modify the pay fixation accordingly. ii. That the arrear accrued on account of consequential benefits may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest @ 12 % from the date of accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 25.03.2025 ( 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 - 3 - 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, 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 7, 2025 R.Atal