IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.16764 of 2024 and connected matters. Decided on: 25th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 16764 of 2024 Munish Burathoki ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 16766 of 2024 Man Sukh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 16768 of 2024 Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost identical prayers, which have been extracted from CWP No. 16764 of 2024:- “(i . That the respondents may be directed to grant first and third financial enhancement/ upgradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 4 years of service w.e.f. 01.08.2014 with all consequential benefits. II. That the Writ of mandamus or any other direction may kindly be issued to the respondent to grant the ACP benefit on competition of four years of service in the cadre of JBT from due date i.e from the year benefits. 2014 with all consequential III. That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of their financial upgradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum..” 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, Annexure P-2, annexed with the respective writ petitions, - 3 - 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 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the 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. - 4 - Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge February 25, 2025 R.Atal