IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1747 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kartar Singh …….Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Shrutika Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the payment of 47 days of accumulated compensatory leave alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization.” 2. Before reply, if any, 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 his pending representation dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.5179 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of 2022, titled as Dhani Ram Vs. HRTC and Another, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Ms. Shrukita Chauhan, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the 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 pending representation dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Dhani Ram case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. 3 Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 13, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)