IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1210/2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 03.03.2025 1 CWP No. 1210/2025 Kuldeep Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 1212/2025 Chander Mohan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.1210 of 2025 read as under:- “(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.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations at Annexure P-9, annexed with the respective petitions, 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 3 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 petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law 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 03rd March, 2025(rohit)