2025:HHC:4253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1185 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jeet Ram ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Kanta Devi and Mr. Sanjeev K. Panwar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the retiral benefits i.e. pension , DCRG arrears , gratuity and leave encashment etc. in time bound manner. ii. That the directions may kindly issued to the respondent to release the aforementioned retiral benefits @ 9 % W.E.F. 01-02-2019 along with cost in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-3 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider his case in light of judgment dated 17.07.2014, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in 2025:HHC:4253 2 case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate, who fairly states that pending representation, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the judgment passed in Nek Ram (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed in Nek Ram (supra). 5. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed in Nek Ram (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of 2025:HHC:4253 3 hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge