IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1056 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.03.2025 Dalip Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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 reliefs:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefits of ACP on completion of 9 years of regular service w.e.f. 01. 01.2016 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 and respondent department be directed to modify the pay fixation accordingly. (ii) That the arrear accrued on account of consequential benefits may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest @ 12 % from the date of accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 03.10.2024 (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. 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 -3- 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 1st March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)