IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.976 of 2025 Decided on: 28th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joginder Singh and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned 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 relief:- “i) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the pay of the petitioner may kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6th CPC from the due date alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representation dated 01.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) preferred by them 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 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 the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 01.11.2024 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six 3 weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh