IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6239 of 2024 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ (i)That the respondent may kindly be directed to release the Gratuity, leave encashment and arrears of pay to the petitioner alongwith 9% interest per annum from the due date till realization of the same or in the alternative the respondents may be directed to extend the same and similar benefits as has been given to the petitioner in CWP No.3050 of 2014 by the Hon’ble High Court judgment dated 17.7.2014; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the leave, gratuity, GPF and arrears of fixation of pay till the date of payment.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case his pending representation dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, tilted Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. 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. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation 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 dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight 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 Division Bench of this Court in Nek Ram’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought 3 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 21,2025 (shankar)