Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chiranji Lal vs Himachal Pradesh Road on 8 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No.10325 of 2023 a/w
CWP Nos.10326, 10327, 10329 to
.
10338, 10357 to 10362 of 2023.
Decided on: 8th January, 2024
1. CWP No.10325 of 2023
Chiranji Lal ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
2. CWP No.10326 of 2023
Ranjeet Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
3. CWP No.10327 of 2023
Dharam Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
4. CWP No.10329 of 2023
Ramesh Chand ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2024 20:34:57 :::CIS
2
5. CWP No.10330 of 2023
Hukam Chand ........Petitioner
Versus
.
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
6. CWP No.10331 of 2023
Kashmir Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
7. CWP No.10332 of 2023
Madan Mohan ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
8. CWP No.10333 of 2023
Brij Lal ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
9. CWP No.10334 of 2023
Amin Chand ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2024 20:34:57 :::CIS
3
10. CWP No.10335 of 2023
Chaman Lal ........Petitioner
Versus
.
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
11. CWP No.10336 of 2023
Joginder Pal ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
12. CWP No.10337 of 2023
Manohar Lal ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
13. CWP No.10338 of 2023
Chhabi Ram ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
14. CWP No.10357 of 2023
Tek Chand ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2024 20:34:57 :::CIS
4
15. CWP No.10358 of 2023
Kali Dass ........Petitioner
.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
16. CWP No.10359 of 2023
Musafir Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
17. CWP No.10360 of 2023
Rikhi Ram ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
18. CWP No.10361 of 2023
Jagdish Chand ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
19. CWP No.10362 of 2023
Prem Sagar ........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road .......Respondents
Transport Corporation & ors.
::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2024 20:34:57 :::CIS
5
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Prakash
.
Chand, Mr. Pranav Kumar
Kaushal & Mr. Sameer
Miyan, Advocates, in all
the petitions.
For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta,
Advocate, in all the
petitions.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits
that CWP No.10325 of 2023, titled as Chiranji Lal
versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport
Corporation & ors. may be taken up as the lead case
for the reason that prayer and relief in all the petitions
listed today is identical. In view of this, the prayer so
made is granted in the interests of justice.
2. In view of the above statement made by
learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts and other
details are extracted from CWP No.10325 of 2023,
titled as Chiranji Lal versus Himachal Pradesh Road
Transport Corporation & ors.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition (CWP No.10325 of 2023, being lead case), with
the following prayers:-
.
"i) That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ order or directions
may kindly be issued directing the
Respondents to release the entire arrears of
retiral benefits i.e. Death-Cum-retirement
Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension and
Leave Encashment to the Petitioner which
have accrued in his favour on account of
Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay)
r Rules 2022 as well as Office Memorandum
dated 25.02.2022 along with 9% p.a.
ii) That the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ order or directions
may kindly be issued directing the
Respondents to release the arrears on
account of the delayed payment along with
interest @ 12 p.a."
4. Case of the petitioner(s) is that consequent
upon the issuance of the Himachal Pradesh Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules dated 03.01.2022
(Annexure P-5), revising the pay scales to State
Government Employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the
Office Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-1)
giving the revised pension, revised gratuity, revised
leave encashment and revised commuted pension for
State Government Employees, who retired/died on or
.
after 01.01.2016, the Respondent-Corporation issued
its own Office Memorandum on 01.08.2022 (Annexure
P-2) giving the revised pay scales and revised retiral
benefits to the employees of the Corporation w.e.f.
01.01.2016. In this background, the petitioner(s) is
claiming benefits of (i) the arrears of revised pay w.e.f.
01.01.2016 till the date of superannuation; and (ii) the
revised retiral benefits i.e. Revised Pension, Revised
Gratuity, Revised Leave Encashment and Revised
Commuted Pension along interest thereon.
5. Learned counsel further submits that firstly,
respondents have not released the arrears of pay for the
period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2017 as yet; secondly,
the respondents have neither released the Revised Benefits
i.e. Revised Leave Encashment, Revised Commuted
Pension, Revised Gratuity under the C.C.S. (Pension)
Rules, 1972; nor the arrears of Revised Pension for the
period w.e.f. 01.02.2017 to the petitioner till day.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has
placed reliance, on the judgment passed by this Court,
in CWP No.5651 of 2023, tilted as Dr. Sunil Kumar
.
Chandel and others Versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and others, decided on 26.09.2023, CWP
No.7895 of 2023, titled as Krishan Lal & others
Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on
18.10.2023. He also placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP
No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta Versus State
of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on
01.12.2022, granting the revised leave encashment on
the basis of revised pay. He further submits that the
judgment in case of Amita Gupta (supra) stands
implemented and in CWP No.2108 of 2023 titled as
Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and others, decided on 31.05.2023,
whereby this Court has mandated the respondents
therein to release the arrears of pay as well as revised
retiral benefits along with arrears with interest @ 6%
per annum from the due date till its realization.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta,
.
learned counsel, appearing for the respondents
submits that the judgment in case of Bhagat Ram
(supra) has not attained finality, as the HRTC-
Respondent therein has filed a Review Petition, which
is pending listing/hearing.
8. Faced with this situation, learned counsel
for the petitioner(s), on instructions, submits that the
petitioner(s) shall be satisfied, in case, this Court
permits him/them to make a representation for
claiming above benefits. The prayer being innocuous,
is not opposed and needs to be granted.
9. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances, and as per the request so made, this
Court permits the petitioner to make fresh
representation to Respondent-Managing Director,
Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, giving
all details material-particulars, within two weeks from
today; with further directions to aforesaid respondent
to consider/examine the claim(s) of the petitioner(s) in
the light of existing norms/rules and Law and also to
.
keep in view the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Bhagat Ram and Amita Gupta (supra); and
then to pass the appropriate orders, within six weeks
thereafter.
10. Needless to say that, this Court has not
adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions
of facts and law are left open.
In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ
petition as well as the pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
January 08, 2024
(Shivender)
