IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4836 of 2025 Decided on: 14th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krishan Dutt …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.G. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel, 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:- “1. A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the benefit of 1st and 2nd financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme to the petitioner w.e.f. 1999 when the O.M. dated 9-8-1999 was issued and made operational by the respondent no.2 as the petitioner had already completed 24 years of regular service as on 10-4-1999, along with up to date arrears and all the consequential benefits.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 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 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 respondents 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. 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 respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 14, 2025 Judge Mukesh