IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1216/2025 Decided on: 04.03.2025 Deepak Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Skandh Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Thakur, ADvocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The 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 Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACPS) on completion of 9 years of regular service w.e.f 1.10.2016 with all consequential benefits in terms of the notification dated 09.08.2012 & instructions dated 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 and in terms of Annexure P-9. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 ii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential benefits of Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACPS) on completion of 9 years of service alongwith interest @9% per annum.” 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 respective representations at Annexure P-10 (colly) 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 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 representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th March, 2025(rohit)