IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8047 of 2023 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kanta Devi …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ i). That the impunged Annexure P-4 (Colly), dated 16.01.2015 containing the communication dated 01.01.2015 may kindly be quashed and set-aside; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant /release the amount of gratuity and leave encashment in favour of the petitioner as per the 1996 pay scale or as calculated by respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-3 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till its disbursement; (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of pay on account of revision of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pay scale w.e.f.01.01.2006 till the date of her retirement alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Though, by way of reply to the petition, claim put forth by the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.681 of 2011, State of Himachal Pradesh& others vs. Dhanni Devi, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though petitioner has already received all the retiral benefits partly as per 1986 pay scale, but still some amount is payable as per 1996 pay scale. He states that entitlement of the petitioner qua balance amount, as indicated hereinabove, has been already adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant 3 proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Dhanni Devi’s case (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 appropriate order and in case, petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioners in afore judgment, she shall also be granted similar benefits. It is not in dispute that judgment passed in Dhanni Devi case has been already implemented. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23,2025 (shankar)