Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.3638, 3642, 3644 & 3646 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.05.2025 1. CWP No.3638 of 2025 Alka Bali & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Another. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.3642 of 2025 Naresh Dutt & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Others. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No.3644 of 2025 Brij Pal & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Others. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.3646 of 2025 Rachna Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Others. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Ms. Shivangi, Advocate, vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. -2- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.3638 of 2025 read as under:- “a. That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of ACP after completion of 9 years of service as TGTs or in alternate respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of All ACP after completion of 4,9 and 14 years of service, with all consequential benefits and interest @ 9% on delayed payment. b. That in alternate petitioner may also be granted the benefits of 4-9-14, more particularly ACP after 9 years, on the analogy of judgment passed by this Hon,ble court in CWPOA 5536 of 2020 along with other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, along with all consequential benefits.” 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 respective representations 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 -3- 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 above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1st May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)