IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.36 of 2025 and connected matters. Decided on: 2nd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 36 of 2025 Deepika Mahajan & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 38 of 2025 Jagriti Kumari & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 52 of 2025 Nalini Dhiman ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates 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 identical substantive relief, which has been extracted from CWP No.36 of 2025: - “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of the ACP Scheme to the Petitioner for the period i.e., w.e.f., date of regularization, till date, along with all consequential benefits in terms of the Assured Career Progression Scheme, as well as, in terms of judgment dated 01.11.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 5536/2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar & others v/s State of H.P. & others a/w connected matters, and the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be directed to be paid with interest.” 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 representations, annexed with the respective writ 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 - 3 - 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 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, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 2, 2025 R.Atal