IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5439 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sood …….Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “a) That a writ of mandamus may please be issued and the respondents may kindly be direction to settle the retiral benefits of the petitioner and issue the sanction orders of the Gratuity and Leave Encashment to the petitioner and disburse the entire amount of Gratuity and leave encashment due and payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.2023 along with upto date interest till the date of its realization on account of delayed period of payments, in view of judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court as per Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 and even otherwise on facts and law forthwith, in the interest of law and justice. b) That the action of the respondents in withholding or not releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner from due date 31.10.2023 till date, may kindly be held as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 &16 of Constitution of India.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth at the behest of petitioner, has been refuted, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2740 of 2022, titled Mudit Kumar Vs. HPTDC, decided on 30.12.2022, along with other connected matters, (Annexure P-3), states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 4. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, learned counsel representing the respondents-Corporation, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Mudit Kumar case (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file 3 appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)