IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3614 of 2025 Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Hariman & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):- “i) That the Petitioners may kindly be held entitled for the benefit of ACP Scheme of 4, 9 & 14 years of service by giving them the financial enhancements/upgradations for their stagnation in the cadre of Lecturers for 4, 9 & 14 years of service, w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits. ii) That after the grant of benefit of 4, 9 & 14 years of service as per their entitlement in the higher pay scale in the hierarchy for having stagnated in the same cadre of Lecturers, School cadre, the arrears accrued thereunder 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- may kindly be ordered to be released alongwith interest, in the interest of 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 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 their 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 -3- consider and decide the aforesaid representations 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 17th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)