IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4744 of 2025 Decided on: 14th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Alpa Malik Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. M.A.Safee and Mr. Pranav K. Kaushal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional 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. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other directions may kindly be issued, to the respondents to grant the benefit of 3rd ACPS on completion of 14 years of regular service w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 13.03.2015 with all consequential benefits in terms of the notification dated 09.08.2012 & instructions dated 07.07.2014 & 09.09.2014 in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Sanjay Kumar Supra. ii. That Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued to directing the Respondents to also pay the consequential benefits on completion of 9 years of service alo0ngwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), 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 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 - 3 - 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 May 14, 2025 R.Atal