IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.658 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manoj Kumar Saklani and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioners by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th pay commission and the due and admissible financial enhancement/up gradation falling due in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.10.2012 may kindly be allowed 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 alongwith all consequential benefits including arrears and interest.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that the representations dated 17.08.2024 (Annexure P-6 Colly.) preferred by them 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. 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 representations of the petitioners in accordance with law 3 within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh