1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12040 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.07.2025 Indu Kala Negi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant 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 relief:- “a). That, a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may Kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents, whereby, petitioners have been denied the benefit of ACPS on completion of 14 year's services in the cadre of JBT, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of jurisprudence. (b) That, the writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant financial enhancements /upgradation under the new ACPS on the -2- completion of 14 years of service with all consequential benefits in terms of Notification dated 09/08/2012. c). That, a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to directing the respondent to decide the request/representations (Annexure P-4) as per the mandate of the Sanjay's case Judgments (Annexure P-3) in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 29.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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 their 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. -3- 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 petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 25th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)