1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7308 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.05.2025 Savita Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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). Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to grant 3rd 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 along with interest @ 9% per annum from due date to till the date of realization.” -2- 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) 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 their 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 petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks -3- from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep) This document was created with the Win2PDF “Print to PDF” printer available at https://www.win2pdf.com This version of Win2PDF 10 is for evaluation and non-commercial use only. Visit https://www.win2pdf.com/trial/ for a 30 day trial license. This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF. https://www.win2pdf.com/purchase/