IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.191 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Puran Chand ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishat, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity (DCRG) Leave encashment and GPF amount along with interest @ 18% on the revised pay scale (1-1-2016) from the date on which same falls due (i.e. 1-7-2024) till its realization. ii) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the arrear of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1-1-2016 to 2022 @ 18%from the date on which same falls due (i.e. 1-7-2024) till its realization on the amount of commutation of pension. 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. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge