IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11312 of 2025 Decided on: 16.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Monika Singh . ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(A) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the 2nd benefit of ACP on completion of 9 years of regular service in the cadre of TGT from due date i.e., from the year 2010 with all consequential benefits in terms of the instructions dated 09.08.2012, 07.07.2014 & 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 09.09.2014. B. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential arrears along with interest @9% per annum.” 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 10.03.2025 ( 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 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. - 3 - 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 from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 16, 2025 (R.Atal)