IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2634/2025 Decided on: 28.03.2025 Krishan Gopal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. To issue directions to respondents No.1 and 3 to grant ACPS benefits after putting in continuous service on the same post for 16 years, 24 years and 32 years to which the petitioner is legally entitled as the similar benefits has already been grants to the similarly situated persons which is evident from Annexure P-10. ii. In view of the reliefs at (i) above, the Respondents may be directed to refix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f 1.1.2002 on account of grant of ACPS benefits including next higher pay scale after 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rendering 32 years of service on the same post in accordance with provision of the scheme as mentioned in para 15(iii) supra of the petition alongwith all the consequential benefits flowing therefrom alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.” 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 representations at Annexure P-6 (colly) and P-6/T 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 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 representations 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)