IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 450, 456, 486, 488 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 1. CWP No.450 of 2025 Ashwani Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.456 of 2025 Bhim Chand ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.486 of 2025 Dharm Paul ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.488 of 2025 Upasna ...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Surinder Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.450 of 2025 read as under:- “i). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of increment of ACP Scheme to the petitioner on completion of his 4-9-14 years of service on one post and one pay scale, 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 along with connected matters (Annexure P-1).” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their respective representations 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 -3- 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)