IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2090/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Dinesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of ACP after completion of 9 years of service as TGTs or in alternate respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of All ACP after completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service, with all consequential benefits and interest @9% on delayed payment. (ii) That in alternate petitioner may also be granted the benefits of 4-9-14, more particularly ACP after 9 years, on the analogy of judgment passed by this Hon,ble court in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 along with other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 State of Himachal Pradesh and others, along with all consequential benefits.” I 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 representation dated 30.10.2024 Annexure P-9 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 in-definitely 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 petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also 3 communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th March, 2025(rohit)