2025:HHC:6827 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3881 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kusum Lata ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent department that the petitioner may kindly be paid the compensation equal to the total emoluments which the petitioner would have received attaining the age of 60 years along with all the consequential benefits in light of Judgment passed by his Hon'ble Court in Satya Devi vs. State of HP & ors. (CWP No. 2274 of 2021). (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the revised pension and all other benefits in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including arrears, back wages and Seniority from due date.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s (supra) as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of her grievances as has been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a 2 period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3