IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7721 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kashmir Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), in 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Careful perusal of averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith reveals that petitioner is aggrieved on account of non-release of retiral benefits. Though petitioner was retired in the year 2024, but till date, his retiral benefits have not been released, as a result thereof, petitioner is facing hardship. Since petitioner has already approached competent authority by way of representation, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, as detailed hereinabove. 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. 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 hardship being faced by the petitioner on account of non-release of retiral benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)