IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11492 of 2025 Decided on: 18th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surjit Paul and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates 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:- “a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefit of 3rd ACP to petitioners no.1 to 4 and 7 and 2nd and 3rd ACP to petitioners no.5, 6 and 8 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014. b) That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 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 (Annexure P-5 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 (Annexure P-5 Colly) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from 3 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 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh