_____________________________________________________________________ vs Hrtc & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 225 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs Hrtc & Anr on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               CWP No.3639 of 2025
                                       Date of Decision: 01.05.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Raj Kumar                                                    .........Petitioner
                                         Versus
HRTC & Anr.                                              .......Respondents

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:       Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following main reliefs:

"(i) The respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner after completion of one year i.e. w.e.f September, 2006, with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments.

(ii) That petitioner may kindly be granted same treatment which has given to petitioner of CWPOA 2343/2020 along with all consequential benefits or decision of BOD dated 28th June, 2024 may also be implanted to petitioner in toto, along with all consequential benefits."

2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be

received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions,

states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is

considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division

Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020 titled Vikram Singh Vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation.

3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents,

Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate, states that he is not averse to

aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and

representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and

decided expeditiously.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without

going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present

petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the

representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-7) in light of Vikram

Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing

the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

May 01, 2025                                   (Sandeep Sharma),
     (sunil)                                        Judge