IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7168/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 27.05.2025 1. CWP No. 7168/2025 Rakesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 7186/2025 Baljinder Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 7188/2025 Vinay Chander …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No. 7302/2025 Priti Choudhary …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No. 7304/2025 Kehar SinghBains & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 6. CWP No. 7306/2025 Kumari Suman …Petitioner 2 Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 7168/2025:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant financial enhancement/up-gradation under the new ACPS (4-9-14) on the completion of 14 years of regular service. (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the consequential arrear alongwith interest @9% per annum due date to till the date of realization.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 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 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 petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 27th May, 2025(rohit)