IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6311 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: M/s Inderjit Singh Narwal and Bhishm Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the retiral benefits of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from due date till its realization keeping in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014 titled as Nek Ram versus HRTC and others.” 2. Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled as Nek 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 17.07.2014, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment, as detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)