2025:HHC:4149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.999 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lekh Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ That the respondents may be ordered to treat the petitioner retired at the age of 60 years and the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years may be read down/the petitioner may be deemed to be retired at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years with notional benefits.” 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 decide the same in light of judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4149 CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General 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 Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Full Bench of this Court in Baldev 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 Full Bench of this Court in Baldev case (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 01,2025 (shankar)