2025:HHC:4223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2871 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “(i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to release the leave encashment, Pension, revised Gratuity and arrears of pay to the petitioner alongwith 9% interest per annum from the due date till realization of the same or in the alternative the respondents may be directed to extend the same and similar benefits as has been given to the petitioner in CWP No. 3050/2014 by the Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 17.7.2014. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. on the leave, revised gratuity Pension GPF and arrears of fixation of pay till the date of payment.” 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 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 (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 speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2