JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 6.6.2022 (Annexure P-6), 8.6.2022 (Annexure P-7), 10.6.2022 (Annexure P-8), and letter dated 22.6.2022 (Annexure P-10) may kindly be set aside with directions to maintain status quo be ordered to be maintained with regard to the MACP benefit already granted w.e.f. 12.11.2008 to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders and to calculate his retirement dues based on the aforesaid orders without effecting any recovery with further directions to release his retirement benefits without any further delay. ii) In case this Hon’ble Court come to the conclusion, that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under MACPS as ordered earlier, in that event the respondents may be directed not to effect any recovery from the retirement benefits of the petitioner in view of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih. iii) The respondents may be directed to pay retirement dues to the petitioner with interest @ 15% PA which is the borrowing rate of interest, from the date the same fell due till actual payment and to refund the recovery, if any made from his last salary for the month of June, 2022.” 2. Mainly, two objections have been taken by the respondents not to accede to the request of the petitioner. The first being lack of territorial jurisdiction and the second that the respondents are already seized of the matter. 3. As regards the first objection, admittedly, the petitioner is a retiree, who is receiving pension within the territorial jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh. If that be so, obviously, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction, more particularly, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shanti Devi @ Shanti Mishra vs. Union of India and others (2020) 10 SCC 766 and the following relevant observations have been made in para-32, which read as under:- “32……..A retired employee, who is receiving pension, cannot be asked to go to another court to file the writ petition, when he has a cause of action for filing a writ petition in the Patna High Court. For a retired employee convenience is to prosecute his case at the place where he belonged to and was getting pension. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 on principle of forum non conveniens has no substance.” 4. Now, coming to the second objection, it would be noticed that the respondents in their reply, more particularly, in para-10 thereof, have clearly stated that the case for waiver of recovery of the excess amount “paid to the petitioner is being reviewed/reconsidered and the outcome of the same will be communicated to the petitioner, once a final decision is arrived at”. 5. We notice that not only is the petitioner a retiree, but currently is a senior citizen aged more than 60 years and, therefore, whatever decision has to be taken by the respondents, must be taken at the earliest. 6. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by directing the respondents to review/reconsider the case for waiver of recovery of excess amount within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 8. For compliance, to come on 03.01.2023.