Between vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4889 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                 ON THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021




                                                       .
                            BEFORE





               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                      ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE





                                &
           HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA


               CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2746 of 2021

         Between:-
                  r       to
         SH. SUBHASH CHAND,
         AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
         S/O LATE SH. PREM SINGH,

         R/O VILLAGE GHUGGARTANDA,
         NEW MORDERN COLONY,
         P.O. AND TEHSIL PALAMPUR,
         DISTT. KANGRA, HP-176061.


                                                    ......PETITIONER
         (BY SH. SHIVENDRA SINGH,
         ADVOCATE)




         AND





    1.   HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
         CORPORATION THROUGH
         ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
         SHIMLA-171003.





    2.   REGIONAL MANAGER,
         HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
         CORPORATION,
         PALAMPUR, H.P.
                                               ......RESPONDENTS
         (BY SH. SHYAM SINGH
         CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:09:48 :::CIS
                                           -2-


                      This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
    Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, passed the following:




                                                                  .
                                      ORDER

The parties are ad idem that the issue in question is no

longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.07.2014, vide

Annexure P-2.

2. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed off on the

basis of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment.

3. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay all

retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of six months from

today. However, it is made clear that in case the retiral benefits are

not paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid time, then in addition to

the due statutory benefits, the petitioner shall also be paid interest at

the rate of 9% per annum beyond the period of six months till the

date of payment. Pending miscellaneous application is disposed off.

                                                  ( Ravi Malimath )
                                                 Acting Chief Justice



                                                ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
    October 04, 2021                                    Judge
     ( Himalvi/Yashwant )