IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.1100 & 1104 of 2025 Decided on: 24th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 1100 of 2025 Brijesh Kumar & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 1104 of 2025 Babu Ram & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar, 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 in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost identical prayer, which has been extracted from CWP No. 1100 of 2025:- “(i That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the third financial enhancement/up- gradation under the New ACP of 2012, to the petitioner, on the completion of 14 year of service as JBT teacher w.e.f due date with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued thereunder may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest.” 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 representations, Annexure P-8, 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. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of - 3 - 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 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 February 24 2025 R.Atal