Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anokhu Ram vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 23 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11084 of 2024
Decided on: 23rd October, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anokhu Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Counsel,
accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, matter is heard at this stage.
2. The petitioner has prayed for grant of actual
benefits with effect from the date when his services were
regularized retrospectively and has assailed the action of
the respondents in releasing him notional benefits.
3. The case of the petitioner is that:-
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?
3(i). Petitioner's name was sponsored through
Employment Exchange for the post of Driver. After holding
proper interview, driving test and completion of training in
the month of August, 1999, he was appointed as Driver on
20.10.2000 (on contract basis) for a period of 89 days. The
petitioner joined his duties on 20.10.2000 itself. Petitioner's
appointment letter dated 20.10.2000 contained a condition
that he will be considered for regular appointment by the
appointing authority after completion of one year of service.
3(ii). The respondents regularized the services of the
petitioner on 31.01.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred
CWP No.3092 of 2013 with the grievance that he had not
been regularized by the respondents as per the terms &
conditions mentioned in his appointment order. The writ
petition was disposed of on 02.05.2014 with a direction to
the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner in accordance with law and also taking into
account the fact as to whether services of any of similarly
situated person have been regularized.
3(iii). The respondents passed consideration order on
30.06.2014 holding that the petitioner was entitled for
regularization of his services after completion of one year of
service as per the policy applicable at the time of his initial
appointment. Accordingly, petitioner's representation was
accepted and his services were regularized w.e.f.
20.10.2001 instead of 07.02.2011, but on notional basis.
4. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant
petition is that he is entitled to all financial benefits flowing
from the date of his retrospective regularization on actual
basis. That the order passed by the respondents, restricting
the actual financial benefits and granting him only notional
benefits w.e.f. 20.10.2001, is not justified as the petitioner
was in service & had been discharging his duties all along
and also it was the condition of his appointment order that
his case was to be considered for regularization after
looking into his performance of one year of service.
In support of the relief prayed by the petitioner,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy
of a decision dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in a bunch of petitions with lead case
being CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation). Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised by the
petitioner in the instant petition is squarely covered by the
aforesaid decision. This position is not disputed by learned
counsel for the respondents.
5. In view of the factual submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to
extract the operative part of judgment dated 09.11.2023
passed in Vikram Singh's case, supra:-
"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."
6. Taking into consideration the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, the judgment dated
09.11.2023 passed in Vikram Singh's case, supra and the
directions issued therein, this petition is also disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to release consequential
benefits admissible to the petitioner in light of his
retrospective regularization under order dated 30.06.2014
on actual basis. The arrears of admissible consequential
benefits be released to the petitioner on or before
30.04.2025, failing which the benefits shall be liable to be
released with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date
till the actual date of payment.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
October 23, 2024 Judge
R.Atal
