IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9429 of 2024 Date of Decision: 1.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i) That respondents may kindly be directed to release/make actual payment of all remaining retiral benefits of the petitioner along with 9% interest forthwith, for delay on the part of respondent corporation and loss of accretion of capital, from due date till actual payment is made, being a squarely covered matter with CWP No. 3050/2024, titled as Nek Ram v/s State of H.P. & others and CWP No. 605/2019 titled as Hukum Chand v/s HRTC. Further respondents may also be directed to pay interest on the all delayed payments from the due date. Further the respondents may kindly be directed to calculate the DCRG of the petitioner in consonance with the prevailing Dearness Allowances & Arrears along with interest at all delayed payments from the due date.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the instant petition is considered and decided by the respondents/competent - 2 - authority in terms of judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, case titled as “Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 3. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. March 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge