2025:HHC:7067 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3971 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sukhbir Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Piyush Agnihorti, Advocate, vice Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashishta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That a Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents to immediately pay/release the actual payment of all remaining retiral benefits such as DCRG, Leave Encashment, commutation, pension, pension and interest @ 9% on delayed payment of Commuted Value of Pension and other retiral benefits standing to the credit of petitioner forthwith, for delay on the part of respondent Corporation and loss of accretion of capital, from due date till actual payment is made, being a squarely covered matter with CWP NO. 3050/2014, titled as "Nek Ram Versus State of H.P & Others and CWP NO. 605/2019 titled as Hukam Chand V/s HRTC. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Encashment and all retiral benefits along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 30-06-2024 till the date they have been actually paid to the petitioner. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the pension to the petitioner regularly on the 1st day of every month as per Nek Ram's Judgment.” 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 a direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be 2 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 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3