IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15012/2024 Decided on: 04.01.2025 Deepak Gupta & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Amandeep 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 relief:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 3rd benefits of ACP on completion of 14 years of regular service in the cadre of TGT from due date i.e., from the year 2015 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014. (ii). That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 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 representation dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 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 respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 3 communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th January 2025(rohit)