IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10533 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhoj Raj …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file representation for redressal of his grievance, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment dated 17.07.2014, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 otherwise represented by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. Mr. Vashisht fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing the respondents, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of his grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks in light of Nek Ram (supra). 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 aforesaid judgment, 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 July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)