IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4286 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.4286 of 2025 Narayan Dass and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.4288 of 2025 Anil Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.4388 of 2025 Shaila Kothari and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.4286 of 2025 reads 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 due and admissible financial up gradation/enhancement falling due in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.10.2012, may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioners along with interest and arrears, in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7), 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 redressal 3 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 the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) 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 May 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh