IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3538 of 2025 Decided on: 17th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Hari Krishan Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 reliefs:- “ I. Writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) & the impugned recovery orders dated 1.09.2016 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - (Annexure P-5) and consequential orders, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice; and/or II. Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the judgment dated 06.08.2024 in CWPOA No.1237 of 2020 and connected matters (Annexure P-9) to the present case; and/or III. Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to re-fix the Applicant's pay and re-calculate the ACP benefits in strict conformity with his original entitlements as provided under the government instructions dated 14.06.1989, 6.04.1990 and 1.12.1999 (Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8), and to restore all benefits wrongly withdrawn or reduced, along with paying theApplicant all arrears along with interest at the prevailing rate arising from the erroneous re-fixation of pay and wrongful withdrawal of ACP benefits; and/or IV. Writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to duly consider the " formal representation submitted by the Applicant (Annexure P-10) and prevent any further unauthorized recovery actions.” 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 17.10.2024 (Annexure P-10), has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the - 3 - 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 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 March 17, 2025 R.Atal