IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 5692, 5696 & 5698/2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 1. CWP No. 5692/2025 Rajinder Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 5696/2025 Laxmi Kant …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 5698/2025 Arun Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Shivom Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 5692/2025:- “That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in favour of the petitioner by ignoring the effect of enhancement allowed on account of implementation of 5th CPC and the pay of the petitioner may kindly be further ordered to be fixed accordingly in 6 CPC from the due date alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of justice.” 3. According to the petitioner(s), the legal issue involved in the cases has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is that their representations, annexed with the respective petitions, have 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 3 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 above, the instant petitions are disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 21st May, 2025(rohit)