IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14706 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025 Ajay Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents-State. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, 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 relief(s):- “a. That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of ACP after completion of 9 years of service or in alternate respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of All ACP after completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service, with all consequential benefits and interest @ 9% on delayed payment. b. That in alternate petitioner may also be granted the benefits of 4-9-14, more particularly ACP after 9 years, 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- on the analogy of judgment passed by this Hon,ble court in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 along with other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, along with all consequential benefits.” 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 01.09.2024 (Annexure P-9) 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 petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from 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 2nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)