2025:HHC:3684 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2633 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sohan Lal …….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: 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, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That the respondents may kindly be ordered to pension to the petitioner as per the notification dated May, 2013 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh with all benefits incidental thereof.” 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 to the competent authority 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3684 for redressal of his grievance in light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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 Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case(supra). 4. Since careful perusal of the pleadings adduced on record vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon clearly reveals that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the afore prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks for consideration of his case in light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case(supra), which in turn shall be 3 2025:HHC:3684 decided by the competent authority/respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 27, 2025 (shankar)