& Distt. Mandi H.P vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4567 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
            ON THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE




                                                         .
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,





                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &





         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

            CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 5517 of 2021





     Between:-

     RAJINDER SINGH (AGED 59 YEARS)
     S/O SH. SHANKAR SINGH,

     VILLAGE MATYARA,
     P.O. NAROLA TEHSIL BALDWARA

     & DISTT. MANDI H.P.
     RETIRED INSPECTOR
     HRTC HAMIRPUR.
                                            .....PETITIONER



     (BY SH. VARUN CHANDEL, ADVOCATE)

     AND




    1. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION (HRTC)





       THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
       OLD BUS STAND SHIMLA-1.





    2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR-CUM-CHIEF
       ACCOUNTANT OFFICER,
       HIMACHAL PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
       CORPORATION AT OFFICE
       OLD BUS STAND, SHIMLA.

    3. REGIONAL MANAGER HRTC
       DEPOT SARKAGHAT,
       DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
                                        .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SMT. SHUBH MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
____________________________________________________




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:05:07 :::CIS
                                       2




              This writ 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.

2. Accordingly, this writ 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.

( Ravi Malimath ) Acting Chief Justice

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge September 16, 2021 (rohit)