IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3764/2025 Decided on: 19.03.2025 Shashi Prabha & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mayank Sharma Advocate vice Mr. Manoj Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant third financial enhancement/up gradation under the new ACPS on the completion of 14 years of service since when they completed the 9th and 14 th years of service with all consequential benefits with interest @ 12% per annum, in view of the judgment dated 01.11.2023 as CWPOA по. 5536 of 2020 titled as "Sanjay Kumar versus State of H.P and others", CWPOA no. 5545 of 2020 titled as "Shashi Kant versus State of H.P and others" CWPOA no. 5553 of 2020 titled as "Som Dutt versus State of H.P and others" and CWPOA no. 5561 of 2020 titled as "Jai Parkash versus State of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 H.P and others" (Annexure A-2) have decided to implement the same, in the interest of law and justice. b) That the respondents may be further directed to calculate the arrears on account of grant of third financial up gradation under the new ACPS (4/9/14) alongwith interest @ 12% pa. c) That a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation Annexure A-1 dated 09.12.2024 during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of law and justice. ” 3. According to the petitioners, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation dated 09.12.2024 at Annexure A-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 petitioners, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March, 19 2025(rohit)