IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.500 of 2025 and connected matters. Decided on: 8th January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 500 of 2025 Naresh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 2. 501 of 2025 Manju and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 502 of 2025 Sarita Rana and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 4. CWP No. 503 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 5. CWP No. 504 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ - 2 - 6. CWP No. 505 of 2025 Deepika m and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 7. CWP No. 506 of 2025 Gagan Deep Kaur and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 8. CWP No. 507 of 2025 Sapna Bhraria and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 9. CWP No. 508 of 2025 Neelam Thakur and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 10. CWP No. 509 of 2025 Arun Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 11. CWP No. 510 of 2025 Monika Mahajan and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 12. CWP No. 511 of 2025 Sanjay Katoch and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ - 3 - 13. CWP No. 512 of 2025 Dharminder Sood and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 14. CWP No. 513 of 2025 Rajender Pal Gautam and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 15. CWP No. 514 of 2025 Jagdeep Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 16. CWP No. 515 of 2025 Ravi Kant Kaushal and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 17. CWP No. 516 of 2025 Madhu Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 18. CWP No. 517 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar and Anr …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ 19. CWP No. 592 of 2025 Meenakshi and Anr …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors …..Respondents - 4 - ______________________________________________________ 20. CWP No. 604 of 2025 Reena Bhatt and Anr …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma Additional Advocate General. 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 common reliefs (prayers have been extracted from CWP No. 500 of 2025): - “i). That the Petitioner may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme of 4, 9 & 14 years of service by giving them the financial enhancements/upgradation for their stagnation 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 5 - in the cadre of Lecturers for 4, 9 & 14 years of service, w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits, in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 5536/2020 titled as "Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. ii). That after the grant of benefit of 4, 9 & 14 years of service as per their entitlement in the higher pay scale in the hierarchy for having stagnated in the same cadre of Lecturers, School cadre, the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of justice. (iii). That the instructions dated 26.2.2013 at Annexure P-3 to the extent the same treated the enhanced Grade Pay of the Lecturers from Rs.4200 to Rs.5400 as a substitute for ACP, may kindly be quashed and set aside..” 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 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. - 6 - 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 8, 2025 R.Atal