Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.4100, 4104 6992 & 6996 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 1. CWP No.4100 of 2025 Reena Kumari & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 2. CWP No.4104 of 2025 Sushil Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents 3. CWP No.6992 of 2025 Sanjiv Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. 4. CWP No.6996 of 2025 Anuradha Soni & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of HP and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. -2- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional 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.4100 of 2025 read as under:- “i). That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the pay of the petitioner my kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6 CPC from the due date along with arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.” 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 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 -3- 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 23rd May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)