IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6895 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kamal Singh …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): 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 erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2929 of 2015, titled as Brij Lal and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, who 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. 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 rendered by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in Brij Lal case (supra), 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 30, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)