IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3707 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ i) That the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to pay the full amount of gratuity and leave encashment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the pending dues under law; ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to extend the benefit of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in case titled as Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others in CWP No.3050 of 2014, decided on 17.07.2014(Annexure P-3) to the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner 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. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that case of 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Nek Ram’ case (supra) 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 judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Nek Ram’s case (supra), wherein issue 3 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 18,2025 (shankar)