IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2626/2025 Decided on: 28.03.2025 Surender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of financial up gradation under ACPS(4-9-14) time scale/enhancement after he had completed 14 years of service at par with his counterparts from the due date i-e 4-06-2013 with all the consequential benefits, in the light of aforesaid Judgment dated 01-11-2023 passed in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 a/w CWPOA No.-5545 of 2020, CWPOA No.-5553 of 2020 and CWPOA No.-5561 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 versus State of H.P. & others, Shashi Kant versus State of H.P. & others, Som Dutt versus State of H.P. & others and Jai Prakash versus State of H.P. & others” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 10.07.2024 at Annexure P-2 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 redresssal 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, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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 3 communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th March, 2025(rohit)