IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3161 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sada Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chandel, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ (a)Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be accepted and an appropriate writ order or directions may kindly issued against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue PPO number to the petitioner and to release all pensionary/retirement benefits i.e. death-cum- retirement gratuity and leave encashment earned leave as stood at the credit of applicant, GLIC and benefits with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement of petitioner and the respondents- department may further directed to release the pension of the petitioner regularly on first day of each month in the interest of justice and fair play’ 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (b) That the respondent-Department may further be directed to release the interest on GPF and commuted value of pension from the date of retirement of petitioner upto date” 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 20.12.2024 (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 Ms. Priyanka Chandel, 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 pending representation dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. 3 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 06,2025 (shankar)