IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11214/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2025 Tarlok Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 2nd benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme/Third financial upgradation on the completion of 9 years regular service in the cadre of Lecturer from due date i.e. 01.01.2016 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @9% per annum.” 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 at Annexure P-5 has still not been decided by respondent No.2/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 redresssal 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, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2025(rohit)