1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWPOA No. 2343/2020, CWP Nos. 823, 4467, 4468, 4609, 4613, 4614, 4615, 4628, 4632, 4633, 4634, 4635, 4654 of 2020, CWPOA Nos. 2090, 2178, 2385, 3011, 3421, 4254, 4278, 4279, 4294, 4297, 4300, 4302 and 4336 of 2020.
Reserved on : 15.09.2023 CWPOA Nos. 6232, 5711,5801,6916 of 2019, CWP No. 5168 of 2020, CWPOA Nos. 2821, 2824, 2833, 2846 of 2020, CWP No. 941 of 2021 and CWP No. 6987 of 2022.
Reserved on : 18.09.2023
r Date of Decision: 09 November, 2023.
1. CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020
Vikram Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation .....Respondent
2. CWP No.823 of 2020 Jaswant Singh .....Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation .....Respondent
3. CWP No. 4467 of 2020 Ghanshyam Singh .....Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 2 .
4. CWP No. 4468 of 2020
Dhani Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
5. CWP No. 4609 of 2020
Durga Dutt .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
6. CWP No. 4613 of 2020
Padam Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
7. CWP No. 4614 of 2020
Khem Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
8. CWP No. 4615 of 2020
Ghanshyam .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
9. CWP No. 4628 of 2020
Himat Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS
3
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
.
10. CWP No. 4632 of 2020
Uma Shankar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
11. CWP No. 4633 of 2020
Inder Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
12. CWP No. 4634 of 2020
Tej Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
13. CWP No. 4635 of 2020
Shashi Bhusan .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
14. CWP No. 4654 of 2020
Puran Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
15. CWPOA No.2090 of 2020
Rami Chand & others .....Petitioners
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS
4
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
.
16. CWPOA No. 2178 of 2020
Surjeet Singh & others .....Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
17. CWPOA No. 2385 of 2020
Gurbax Singh & others .....Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
18. CWPOA No. 3011 of 2020
Rakesh Kumar & others .....Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. .....Respondents
19. CWPOA No. 3421 of 2020
Ishwar Dass & others .....Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. .....Respondents
20. CWPOA No. 4254 of 2020
Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
21. CWPOA No. 4278 of 2020
Ram Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS
5
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
.
22. CWPOA No. 4279 of 2020
Punjab Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
23. CWPOA No. 4294 of 2020
Piar Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
24. CWPOA No. 4297 of 2020
Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
25. CWPOA No. 4300 of 2020
Parkash Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
26. CWPOA No. 4302 of 2020
Sugreev Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
27. CWPOA No. 4336 of 2020
Raj Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS
6
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
.
28. CWPOA No. 6232 of 2019
Hira Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
29. CWPOA No. 5711 of 2019
Chander Parkash Verma .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
30. CWPOA No. 5801 of 2019
Dharam Parkash .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
31. CWPOA No. 6916 of 2019
Bhubnesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
32. CWP No. 5168 of 2020
Krishan Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
33. CWPOA No. 2821 of 2020
Anil Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS
7
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
.
34. CWPOA No. 2824 of 2020
Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. .....Respondents
35. CWPOA No. 2833 of 2020
Charan Dass .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
36. CWPOA No. 2846 of 2020
Chakar Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
37. CWP No. 941 of 2021
Ghanshyam Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
38. CWP No. 6987 of 2022
Mohan Lal & others .....Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .....Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS
8
Coram:
.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner (s): M/s Shyama Prashad Chatterji, Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Avinash Jaryal and Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocates for the respective petitioner(s).
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Mr. Raman Jamalta and Mr. Shyam Singh, Advocates, for the respective respondents.
____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Since common questions arise for consideration in all these matters, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the same are being taken up together for disposal.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are admitted and lie in a narrow compass. Vide order dated 23.03.1996, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Board of Directors of the Himachal Road Transport 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 9Corporation (hereinafter, for purpose of brevity, referred to as "the respondent-Corporation") with the prior concurrence of the .
Government of Himachal Pradesh, made regulations called the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class I, II, III, IV) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1996. The same came into effect from the very same date. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the Repeal and Savings Clause provided under the aforesaid service regulations. The same Clause is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"15. REPEAL AND SAVING:
The Corporation shall have the inherit right to amend, alter or modify these regulations at any time at its sole discretion, in consultation with the State Government where necessary.
Provided that it shall not affect in any manner anything done or any action taken already under the relevant rules, regulations, directions or orders in force or applicable at the relevant time."
3. Thereafter, vide instructions dated 12.12.2003, the Government of Himachal Pradesh informed all concerned that the Government had decided to incorporate "contract" recruitment as a mode of recruitment in addition to the other existing modes of recruitment, i.e., "direct" and "promotion" in all the Recruitment ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 10 and Promotion Rules. The respondent-Corporation, in furtherance of the aforesaid instructions, amended its Service Regulations on .
03.08.2006, whereby 'contractual recruitment' was added as an additional mode to the already existing modes of recruitment prescribed therein.
4. In the 95th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation held on 02.08.2003 vide Item No.4 contained therein, a decision was taken to recruit 153 Drivers, on contract basis, on a fixed amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. The present petitioners have been appointed as Drivers in pursuance of the aforesaid decision taken. The recruitment in pursuance to the aforesaid had taken place in the year, 2003-06. The petitioners were regularized after 6-8 years of their appointments on contract basis.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been regularized after six years of service, whereas in certain cases, details whereof have been given in the petition, similarly situate individuals have been regularized after one year of service. Other than the aforesaid, the petitioners' contention is that in the service regulations there is no provision for contractual appointment.
Hence, their appointments should be made on a regular basis.
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 116. Feeling aggrieved, some of the petitioners had preferred Original Application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State .
Administrative Tribunal. The Original Applications so filed were disposed of by the erstwhile Tribunal directing the respondent-
Corporation to consider their cases. While disposing of the aforesaid Original Applications, a specific reference was made to decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.9279 of 2011, titled as Jagdish Chand and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, decided on 09.01.2014. A reference to the aforesaid was made, as parity was being sought on the basis of the same.
7. A perusal of the consideration order dated 6.4.2017 passed in furtherance of the directions issued by the erstwhile Tribunal reflects that the cases of similarly situate individuals were dismissed on account of the fact that Jagdish Chand who had been granted relief in CWP No.9279 of 2011 was not similarly situate as the present petitioners/applicants who had approached the erstwhile Tribunal for Jagdish Chand had been appointed prior to Government of Himachal Pradesh instructions dated 12.12.2003 issued by the Department of Personnel, wherein the Government had asked all concerned to modify their Recruitment ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 12 & Promotion Rules in order to incorporate a new mode of recruitment, i.e, 'contractual appointment'.
.
8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present petitioners have approached this Court. In the reply filed, respondent-Corporation has taken a plea of existence of an alternate remedy in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Other than the aforesaid, the respondent-Corporation has raised a plea of acquiescence for according to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioners have accepted their appointments without any protest and they got their contracts renewed annually. A plea that the petition is barred by limitation/delay & laches has also been taken.
9. The respondent-Corporation has further, in it reply, contended that since its incorporation it is following the general instructions including Policies relating to recruitment, condition of service, training of its employees and wages being paid as issued by the State Government in this regard. Based on the aforesaid, it is contended that the instructions dated 12.12.2003, whereby the State had directed all concerned to modify their Recruitment and Promotion Rules in order to incorporate a new mode of recruitment, i.e., contractual appointment, is being followed "in ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 13 principle" by the respondent-Corporation, though service regulations in this respect were amended on 03.08.2006 .
10. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to the reply of the respondent-Corporation, wherein it is categorically stated that in pursuance to the Board of Directors 95th meeting held on 02.08.2003 in Item No.4, it was decided to recruit 153 Drivers on contractual basis at Rs.5,000/- per month. Besides the aforesaid, with respect to employees who had been regularized after one year, the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation is that they have been engaged before 12.12.2003 (date of issuance of instruction of State Government).
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
12. From a perusal of the record, it is interesting to note that in the minutes of the 77th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, held on 26.12.1994, Item No.77.2, had been placed for consideration of the Board of Directors. A perusal whereof reflects that a procedure sought to be adopted for making contractual recruitment had been placed for the consideration of the Board. The aforesaid procedure was sought to be followed post relaxation of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in this ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 14 respect. In the procedure proposed 7 conditions were placed for the consideration of the Board with respect to make a contractual .
recruitment. Condition No.vii was as follows:-
"After completion of one year, the cases will be reviewed for offering regular employment".
13. The aforesaid proposal was accepted by the Board, however, the aforesaid condition No.vii had been deleted.
Despite the same, a condition in this regard was incorporated in the terms and conditions of appointment. The relevant extract of the condition incorporated in this regard in the appointment letters issued despite the same having been rejected by the Board is being reproduced herein below:-
"3. The appointment will be initially for 89 days where after each case will be considered for regular appointment by the appointing authority concerned on merits on his one year performance basis."
It is an admitted fact that regularization of individuals, appointed on contractual basis in pursuance to the Board's approval in its 77th meeting held on 26.12.1994, was after one year.
14. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to Office order dated 30.06.2014 passed in favour of Hoshiar Singh, ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 15 a Driver working in the respondent-Corporation. The said individual was appointed as a Driver on 30.03.2001 (contract .
basis) as per the terms and conditions of his appointment, his services were to be regularized after one year. However, the services of the said individual were regularized on 18.04.2011.
Being aggrieved by the belated regularization, the said individual had approached the Managing Director of the respondent-
Corporation, who after considering the case, allowed his regularization on completion of one year service in terms of the condition of appointment. The Managing Director further held that since with respect to the working of Hoshiar Singh, there was never any objection raised by the respondent-Corporation rather it was added to the same that the said individual's contract had been renewed, therefore, there was no requirement of assessing the merit of Hoshiar Singh.
15. From the documents which have been placed on record by the respondent-Corporation, specifically Annexure R/P dated 29.10.2004, it is clearly evident that in the case of one Sunder Mohan, Virender Kumar, Kulwant Singh Sanamguru, Shadi Ram, Raghubir Singh and Arun Kumar, condition No.3 as had existed in previous contracts, detail whereof has been already stated ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 16 supra, was incorporated in their contracts despite the fact that their recruitments had been made in the year, 2004. The same .
belies the contention of the respondent-Corporation that post 12.12.2003, there was no provision for regularizing the incumbents appointed after one year. The stand now taken is that such individuals have not been regularized after one year despite the existence of a condition in this regard. The stand is of no consequence as this condition has not been withdrawn, meaning thereby that they are entitled to benefits of CWP No.9279 of 2011 titled as Jagdish Chand and others vs. HRTC, which have been denied to them.
16. Strong reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No.21 of 2013, titled State of HP and others vs. Ravinder Kumar alongwith connected matters, decided on 4.10.2019.
Based on the aforesaid, it is strongly contended by the petitioners that in the absence of a provision for making contractual appointment in the respondent-Corporation, the same could not have been made, therefore, their appointments right from the start need to be treated as regular appointment. The ratio of the judgment referred to above clearly supports the case of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 17 petitioners and on this count they are entitled to claim appointment(s) on regular basis with effect from their initial date of .
appointment(s). The recruitments had been made in accordance with the prescribed eligibilities in the R&P Rules and after duly advertising the posts.
17. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 45, which relates to the power to make regulations and reads as under:- r "45. Power to make regulations.--
(1) A Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--
(a) the manner in which, and the purposes for which, persons may be associated with the [Board] under section 10;
(b) the time and place of meetings of the [Board] and the procedure to be followed in regard to transaction of business at such meetings;
(c) the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and [other employees of the Corporation other than the Managing Director, the Chief Accounts Officer and the Financial Adviser or, ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 18 as the case may be, the Chief Accounts Officer-cum- Financial Adviser];
.
[(d) the issue of passes to the employees of the Corporation and other persons under section 19;
(e) the grant of refund in respect of unused tickets and concessional passes under section 19.]"
18. Undoubtedly, Section 45 of the Act empowers the Corporation to make regulations, but that is subject to the requires three steps:-
r to previous sanction of the State Government. This necessarily "(i) The Corporation "frames or "proposes" regulations by its resolution. These have to be sent to the State Government for according sanction.
(ii) The State Government then accords its sanction. In this power of the Government it is implicit that it may reject or suggest amendment or modification in the proposed regulations and eventually accord its sanction.
(iii) After the State Government accords its sanction, the Corporation "makes" regulations."
19. The power conferred on the Corporation to make regulations is a power which, under Section 5(1), vests in and is exercised by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Whereas, the power to make regulations relating to the conditions of service of officers and other employees of the corporation, under Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 19 45(2)(c) is vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporation and such a power to make regulations (commonly termed as Rules by .
the Corporation) can only be exercised with the previous sanction of the State Government.
20. In so far as the plea of alternate remedy is concerned, since the petitioners are claiming a right to be considered for regularization on completion of one year of service and discrimination is writ large on account of the fact that similarly situate employees like the petitioners have been treated differently, therefore, there is an infraction of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1, we find no force in the contention of the respondent-Corporation in this regard. More so, when the facts are admitted and the remedy to which the petitioners are being sought to be relegated would not be efficacious, at this stage, as the same would unnecessarily defer adjudication of the present petitions. Besides the aforesaid plea of existence of an alternate remedy is an exercise on account of judicial restraint which we are of the considered ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 20 opinion would not be appropriate to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the cases at hand.
.
21. The plea that the petitioners had accepted their appointment without any protest is also liable to be rejected on account of existence of un-equal bargaining power inter se parties. The petitioners were in no position to dictate terms of appointment. The petitioners had accepted a paltry salary of Rs.5,000/-, which is admittedly lesser than what would have been given to incumbents appointed regularly for doing the same job.
The same reflects an exploitative tendency on the part of the respondent-Corporation and does not behove of the Corporation as a model employer. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, 1986 (3) SCC 156.
22. In this respect, reliance placed by the respondent-
Corporation on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.211 of 2018, titled as Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Others vs. Jagat Singh, decided on 27.08.2019, is of no avail as the same is clearly distinguishable. Therein, it has been laid that all identically placed ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 21 persons need to be treated alike by extending the benefit is subject to certain exceptions of delay and laches and .
acquiescence. With respect to the aforesaid principle, the learned Division Bench therein had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347. However, a perusal of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court reflects that the aforesaid two exceptions would not apply when the matter pertains to a Policy matter like a Scheme of regularization as is in the cases at hand.
23. In so far as the plea of limitation/delay and laches is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected. As has already been stated supra, the plea of petitioners is based on discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Thimmappa and others vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and another, 2001 (2) SCC 259, wherein, it has been categorically laid down that if there is an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India then petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 2224. A plea of negative parity has been raised by the respondent-Corporation. The same is rejected as the same does .
not arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the cases at hand.
25. For delayed regularization, petitioners cannot be blamed as the same was to be done by the respondent-Corporation. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and others alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.07.2010.
26. The stand of the respondent-Corporation that instructions dated 12.12.2003, "in principle" was being followed by the respondent-Corporation till its adoption in the year, 2006 is also liable to be rejected. A perusal of the memorandum for consideration of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, held on 18.09.2012, specially Item No.120.12 categorically reflects that the instructions of the State Government are not applicable to the employees of the HRTC ipso facto, as such, the same are required to be placed before the Board of Directors for consideration and approval.
A perusal of the said Item placed before the Board clearly reflects ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 23 that therein a proposal was mooted by the respondent-
Corporation to adopt the Contractual Employees Regulation .
Policy of the State Government. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the stand now being sought to be taken in the reply that the instructions of the State Government ipso facto apply, is contrary to the stated position hereinabove. The stand now taken seems to be based on the convenience and suitability of the respondent-Corporation. Moreover, in our considered view Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, as stated supra, prescribes the mandatory procedure required to be followed. The same is being referred by way of an abundant caution. In the cases at hand, we have not gone into the question, as to whether the respondent-Corporation has followed the procedure prescribed for amending the Rules in 2006 for the reason that adjudication there upon will be of no consequence in the cases at hand.
27. The recruitments in question, as has already been stated supra, had been initiated in furtherance of approval accorded in this regard in the 95th Board meeting held on 02.08.2003 prior to issuance of instructions dated 12.12.2003 and its adoption by the Board on 03.08.2006. Therefore, the petitions filed by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 24 petitioners, being similarly situate as their counterparts who had been appointed earlier with respect to whom parity was being .
sought, deserves to be allowed on this account also.
28. Even otherwise prior to 2010, there is no Regularization Policy of the State which has been adopted by the respondent-
Corporation. Hence, on this account also the respondent-
Corporation will have to uniformly regularize contractual appointees after one year.
29. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in the claim of petitioners and same is accepted, whereas plea of the respondents-Corporation is rejected being not sustainable. Petitioners are held entitled for regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. However, we are not awarding any interest thereon, at this stage. The consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioners within one month from today, arrears whereof shall be paid to the petitioners on or before 30.04.2024, failing which the respondents-Corporation shall also be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS 2530. Accordingly, present petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also, the pending miscellaneous .
application(s), if any.
( Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
09 November, 2023 (KS)
r to ( Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2023 20:33:01 :::CIS