2025:HHC:4148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1003 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A.Khan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, 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 respondents may kindly be directed to pay the monetary/consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of his regularization i.e. 1 year as per the terms and conditions of the policy with upto date interest in a time bound manner. (ii). That the respondents may also kindly be directed to pay the arrears alongwith interest in a time bound manner”. 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 case he is permitted to file representation with a direction to the respondents to consider and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4148 decide the same in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2343 of 2024, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents states that representation, if any, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, coupled with the fact that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case(supra), there appears to be no impediment in accepting the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law. 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 speaking order thereupon, taking note of the mandate contained in the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 01,2025 (shankar)