IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8454/2025 Decided on: 06.06.2025 Promila …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That an appropriate writ be issued, directing the Respondents to grant the financial enhancement/upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of service with all consequential benefits b) 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. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case/representation of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court in a time bound manner. ” 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 representations dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P- 2) 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 petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th June, 2025(rohit)