IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.14690, 14691, 14692, 14693 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.01.2025 1. CWP No.14690 of 2024 Shilpa Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.14691 of 2024 Avtar Singh ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.14692 of 2024 Sunita Kumari ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.14693 of 2024 Kamal Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus The State of HP And Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, vice Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- For the respondent(s) : 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. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.14690 of 2024 read as under:- “I. That the respondent may be directed to grant first and third financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 4 of service w.e.f. 01.08.2014 with all consequential benefits. II. That the Writ of mandamus or any other direction may kindly be issued to the respondent to grant the ACP benefit on completition of 4and 9yrs of service in the cadre of JB from due datei.e from the year 2014 with all consequential benefits. III. That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of their financial upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) along with interest 12% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective -3- representations 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective representations 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. -4- The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 2nd January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)