IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8228/2025 Decided on: 02.06.2025 Mohinder Paul …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J CMP No.10913/2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in refiling the petition is condoned. Application to stand disposed of. CWP No. 8228/2025 Notice. Ms. Sugandh Verma, learned vice counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (i) That issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been denied ACPS benefit after completion of 4 years of service (ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of ACPS after completion of 4 years of service along with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest.” 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 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) has 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. 3 5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing 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, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 2nd June, 2025(rohit)