2025:HHC:4902 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3099 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rattan Chand …….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: Ms. Aashima Premy, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajat Thakur, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Corporation to grant the benefit of enhanced pension allowance @ 5%, 10% and 15% alongwith consequential benefits including interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner; b) Direct the respondent Corporation to pay the full amount of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and interest amount of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4902 commute pension, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the pending dues under law from the date of retirement alongwith all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play; c) Direct the respondent Corporation to extend the benefit of judgment passed in CWP No.3050 of 2014(Nek Ram’s case) to the petitioner.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 09.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, tilted Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 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 Mr. Rajat Thakur, Proxy counsel, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation 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 3 2025:HHC:4902 pending representation dated 09.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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 Nek Ram’s 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 05,2025 (shankar)