2025:HHC:6303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3543 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ranjana Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Grant in Aid and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner and release the amount along with interest at market rates till such payment is made, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case her case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWP No. 60 of 2006 titled Jagdev Katoch Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her grievance (Annexure P-5), 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Jagdev Katoch (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2