2025:HHC:4908 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3089 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Hukam Chand & another …….Petitioners Versus HRTC & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Aashima Premy, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Thakur, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the pension allowances @ 5%, 10% and 15% of basic pension/family pension after attaining the age of 65, 70 and 75 despite notification of pension allowances and judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.8670 of 2023 in favour of the petitioners and within time bound manner and be released as per law.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, Ms. Aashima Premy, Proxy counsel representing the petitioners, while referring to judgment dated 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4908 07.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.8670 of 2023, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Brij Lal and others states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondent-Corporation to consider and decide their representation dated 16.02.2025(Annexure P-4) in light of afore judgment, 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 fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated, rather judgment pressed into service has been already upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in a time bound manner. 3 2025:HHC:4908 5. 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 16.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners 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 petitioners pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Brij Lal case(supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 05,2025 (shankar)