IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7840 of 2025 Decided on: 14th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Kuldeep Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant 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 relief:- “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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - the due date i-e 05.11.2012 with all the consequential benefits, in the light of aforesaid Judgment dated 01-11-2023 passed in CWP OA 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 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 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), 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 - 3 - 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 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 May 14, 2025 R.Atal