Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Chand vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 26 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
2025:HHC:16059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
Decided on : May 26, 2025
1. CWPOA No.5730 of 2020
Hem Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
2. CWPOA No.5794 of 2020
Pritam Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
3. CWPOA No.1958 of 2020
Nikka Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
4. CWPOA No.5773 of 2020
Bhoop Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
Ranjeet Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
Surinder Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
Naresh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...2...
Partap Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma and Mr. Himanshu
Kapila, Advocates.
For the respondent - : Ms Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, in CWPOA
HRTC Nos.5730, 5773 & 6258 of 2020.
Mr. B.N. Sharma and Ms Mamta,
Advocates, in CWPOA No.3373 of 2020.
Mr. Raman Jamalta and Ms Aashima
Premy, Advocates, in CWPOA No.1958 of
2020.
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP No.953
of 2020, CWPOA Nos.4360, 5794 & 6236 of
2020.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
These petitions, for involvement of similar issue to be decided
on the basis of similar facts and common law, as applicable, are
being decided together by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of
impugned office orders dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure A-11 in CWPOA
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...3...
Nos.5730 & 5794 of 2020); 6.4.2017 (Annexure A-13 in CWPOA
No.1958 of 2020); 15.10.2018 (Annexure A-11 in CWPOA No.5773 of
2020); 31.7.2017 (Annexure A-11 in CWPOA No.4360 of 2020);
15.10.2018 (Annexure A-12 in CWPOA No.6258 of 2020);
12.10.2018 (Annexure A-11 in CWPOA No.6236 of 2020); 15.9.2017
(Annexure A-11 in CWPOA No.3373 of 2020); and 26.11.2019
(Annexure P-13 in CWP No.953 of 2020) and to direct the
respondent-HRTC to regularize their services on completion of 8
years, from the date of their initial appointment.
3. These petitions (CWPOAs) were filed in H.P. State
Administrative Tribunal (HPSAT), as OA bearing Nos.7379 of 2018,
7529 of 2018, 1716 of 2017, 7385 of 2018, 2452 of 2018, 250 of
2019, 240 of 2019 and 6616 of 2017. On abolition of HPSAT, these
OAs were transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOAs.
4. Petitioners were engaged against different posts, on different
dates, as under:
Name of Number of Writ Post Date of
Petitioner Petition engagement
Hem Chand CWPOA No.5730 of Peon 15.10.1998
Pritam Singh CWPOA No.5794 of Chowkidar 1.3.1998
Nikka Ram CWPOA No.1958 of Chowkidar 5.6.2000
Bhoop Singh CWPOA No.5773 of Chowkidar 1.5.1998
Ranjeet Singh CWPOA No.4360 of Clerk 15.3.1996
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...4...
Surinder Kumar CWPOA No.6258 of Sweeper 1.7.1994
Naresh Kumar CWPOA No.6236 of Peon 1.11.1999
Partap Singh CWPOA No.3373 of Peon 2.1.1997
Rajesh Kumar CWP No.953 of 2020 Upholster 19.8.1998.
5. Services of the petitioners were terminated by HRTC on
different dates and, against such termination, the petitioners had
approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the Labour
Court passed Award, on different dates, in favour of the petitioners
directing their reinstatement with seniority and continuity in service
retrospectively but without back wages. Consequently, the petitioners
were reinstated.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when,
even after placing the case of the petitioners before the Board of
Directors of the HRTC, their services were not regularized on
completion of eight years of service, petitioner Ranjeet Singh had
filed CWP No.5403 of 2010, which was allowed by this High Court on
2.5.2011; petitioner Nikka Ram had filed CWP No.5925 of 2012,
which was decided on 26.7.2012; petitioner Pritam Singh had filed
CWP No.15 of 20213, which was decided by a Division Bench of this
High Court vide judgment dated 3.1.2013; and petitioners Partap
Singh, Hem Chand, Naresh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and one other
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...5...
person Mehar Singh filed CWP No.7519 of 2011, which was decided
on 12.12.2011.
7. Petitioners Surinder Kumar and Bhoop Singh had also filed
Writ Petitions No.11575 of 2011 and 11723 of 2011, respectively.
8. Decision in Civil Writ Petitions filed by Ranjeet Singh, Partap
Singh, Hem Chand, Naresh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar was assailed
by HRTC by filing LPA No.585 of 2011 and LPA No.37 of 2012.
9. The aforesaid LPA Nos.585 of 2011 and 37 of 2012,
alongwith CWPs No.11575 of 2011 and 11723 of 2011, filed by
petitioners Surinder Kumar and Bhoop Singh, respectively, and one
more Civil Writ Petition No.11577 of 2011 filed by one Dila Ram, were
decided together by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment
dated 13.4.2012, in the following terms:
"2. These appeals and writ petitions are disposed of with a
direction to the HRTC to consider the claim of the petitioners for
regularization positively within a period of three months from
today. However, we make it clear that the entitlement of actual
back wages will be only for a period of 36 months prior to
August, 2012, even if they are regularized from an earlier date.
Needless to say that, till such time the benefits would be
notional."
10. Writ Petition No.5925 of 2012, filed by petitioner Nikka Ram;
and Writ Petition No.15 of 2013, filed by petitioner Pritam Singh,
were decided on 26.7.2012 and 3.1.2013, respectively, by Division
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...6...
Bench(s) of this High Court in terms of above referred judgment dated
13.4.2012, passed in LPA No.585 of 2011 and connected matters.
11. However, despite direction to consider, benefit of
regularization was not extended to the petitioners on completion of
eight years of service. Therefore, the petitioners approached the
erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by filing Original
Applications No.3857 of 2016 (Hem Chand), 4282 of 2016 (Pritam
Singh), 5503 of 2015 (Nikka Ram), 4285 of 2016 (Bhoop Singh),
3866 of 2016 (Ranjeet Singh), 4280 of 2016 (Surender Kumar), 3871
of 2016 (Naresh Kumar), 3871 of 2016 (Pratap Singh) and 2028 of
2019 (Rajesh Kumar), which were decided by the Tribunal on
11.8.2016, 1.9.2016, 7.1.2016, 15.10.2018, 11.8.2016, 1.9.2016,
11.8.2016, 11.8.2016 and 10.6.2016 respectively, on the basis of
judgment dated 9.5.2014, passed by this High Court in CWP No.1482
of 2013, titled Rishi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, with similar directions.
12. In Rishi's case, learned Single Judge, has observed as
under:
1. "The petitioner was engaged as Sweeper in the
respondent-Corporation on 18.4.1998. He worked uninterruptedly
for more than eight years and completed 240 days in a block of
twelve calendar months. He has not been regularized. The
petitioner in fact, as per record, has completed eight years of
continuous service on 18.4.2006. the only reason assigned for
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...7...
not regularizing the petitioner is that he has been appointed
without following the proper procedure.
... ... ... ...
4. The plea raised by the respondent-Corporation that the
petitioner has not been appointed in accordance with law will
not come in the way of the petitioner seeking regularization at
this stage. The respondent-Corporation ought to have been
cautious at the time when he was engaged. This plea has been
raised only to deprive the petitioner status of regular employee.
5. Accordingly, in view of the observation and analysis made
hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-
Corporation is directed to regularize the petitioner immediately
after completion of eights years of service, i.e. 18.4.2006 with
continuity in service. It is made clear that the entitlement of the
actual back wages will be restricted to 36 months. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to
costs."
13. Against the aforesaid decision passed in CWP No.1482 of
2013, HRTC had filed LPA No.145 of 2021, which was dismissed by
this High Court vide order dated 10.11.2021. Special Leave Petition
(C) No.2066 of 2022, titled as Himachal Pradesh Transport
Corporatin Shimla & Ors. V. Rishi, preferred by HRTC against the
said order, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.2.2022.
14. It is apt to record that judgment in Rishi's case has been
implemented.
15. Respective representations preferred by the petitioners were
decided by HRTC, vide impugned orders referred supra, and the
claim of the petitioners was rejected with identical reasoning and
manner, except name of the petitioner and number of the case. For
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...8...
reference, reasoning given for rejecting the representations in one of
the cases CWP No.5730 of 2020 (Annexure A-11), is being
reproduced as under:
"AND WHEREAS in the case of Sh. Rishi Raj, the Hon'ble
Court had specifically directed to regularize his services with
effect from 18.04.2006 and accordingly, his services were
regularized with effect from 18.04.2006. As regards
regularization of services of Hem Chand, Peon is concerned, no
specific date has been mentioned in the order/judgment of
Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 11.08.2016.
Moreover, Sh. Hem Chand, Peon was regularized w.e.f.
09.09.2009 keeping in view the instructions of the State
Government dated 09.09.2008 issued regarding regularization
of contractual employees who had completed 8 years service as
on 31.03.2008. As such, the case of the applicant is not similar
to that of Sh. Rishi Raj petitioner in C.W.P. 1482/2013. Hence
the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.P. 1482/2013."
16. The rejection order is glaring example of complete non-
application of mind, muchless judicious mind.
17. Stand of HRTC in present cases as well as in Rishi's case
was one and the same that the petitioners were appointed, at the first
instance, without following the proper procedure of recruitment.
18. Averments made in the petitions, replies filed thereto, are
similar to Rishi's case. The only reason given for differentiating and
distinguishing cases of the petitioners from Rishi's case is that in
Rishi's case there was direction to regularize Rishi by mentioning a
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...9...
specific date, i.e. 18.4.2006, but no such specific date has been
mentioned in the orders passed in cases of present petitioners.
19. Reasoning assigned for rejecting the claim of petitioners is a
glaring example of rarest cases of absurdity of highest level. In
Rishi's case, direction was to regularize him after completion of eight
years of service and date of completion of eight years was mentioned
as 18.4.2006 with reference to his date of first engagement from
19.4.1998. In present cases also, there is direction to regularize on
completion of eight years. Specific date of completion of eight years
shall be and is to be determined/ascertained on the basis of dates of
initial appointment of petitioners which were and are available with
the respondent-Corporation.
20. First date of appointment of petitioners is well known to
HRTC and has also been mentioned in the petitions preferred by
them and the same is also stated in the replies filed by the HRTC.
Direction to regularize the petitioners on completion of eight years
from their first date of appointment, with mention of date of
completion of eight years or without mention of such date, makes no
difference in the direction passed by the Court. There is no other
reason assigned for rejecting the claim of petitioners. This objection
is irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary.
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...10...
21. No other point, other than the points raised in reply in Rishi's
case, was raised in the present petitions and except reasons
assigned in impugned rejection order there is no other ground taken
for denying the benefit of regularization to the petitioners after eight
years of service. The grounds raised by the HRTC, as discussed
supra, are meritless.
22. In view of above, it is made clear that, at this stage, HRTC is
precluded from raising any other objection being inhibited from doing
so for not raising any other objection at the time of rejection of claim
of petitioners, as it is a well settled principle of law that reasons are
not like wine which mature over a period of time, as has been held in
AIR 1978 SC 851, titled Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others. Relevant
extract is reproduced herein below:-
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning
may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge,
get validated by addition grounds later brought out. We may
here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. In
Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) ( at. p.18):
"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making the
order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what
he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...11...
are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect
the acting and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders
are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that there is merit in the claim of the petitioners and plea of
the respondent-Corporation to oppose the same is liable to be
rejected.
24. It is settled that though law of Limitation is not applicable,
however principle of delay and laches is attracted for adjudication of a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a petitioners
may be ousted or deprived from monetary benefits or interest on
delayed payment for delay and laches in appropriate case.
25. Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor
& General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC 1409, has held
as under:
"... ... ...It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right
to relief must be judged to exist as on date a suitor institutes the
legal proceeding... ... ..."
26. Supreme Court in Rajeshwar and others vs. Jot Ram and
another, (1976) 1 SCC 194: AIR 1976 SC 49, referring Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770
: AIR 1975 SC 1409; and Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (1971) 1
SCC 34; has held as under:-
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...12...
"6. The philosophy of the approach which commends itself to us
is that a litigant who seeks justice in a perfect legal system gets
it when he asks for it. But because human institutions of legal
justice function slowly, and in quest of perfection, appeals and
reviews at higher levels are provided for, the end product comes
considerably late. But these higher Courts pronounce upon the
rights of parties as the facts stood when the first Court was first
approached. The delay of years flows from the infirmity of the
judicial institution and this protraction of the Court machinery
shall prejudice no one. Actus curiae neminem gravabit.
Precedential support invoked by the appellant's counsel also
lets him down provided we scan the fact situation in each of
those cases and the legal propositions therein laid down.
7. The realism of our processual justice bends our jurisprudence
to mould, negate or regulate reliefs in the light of exceptional
developments having a material and equitable import, occurring
during the pendency of the litigation so that the Court may not
stultify itself by granting what has become meaningless or does
not, by a myopic view, miss decisive alterations in fact-situations
or legal positions and drive parties to fresh litigation whereas
relief can be given right here. The broad principle, so stated,
strikes a chord of sympathy in a court of good conscience. But a
seeming virtue may prove a treacherous vice unless judicial
perspicacity, founded on well-grounded- rules, studies the plan
of the statute, its provisions regarding subsequent changes and
the possible damage to the social programme of the measure if
later events are allowed to unsettle speedy accomplishment of a
re-structuring of the land system which is the soul of this which
enactment. No processual equity can be permitted to sabotage
a cherished reform, nor individual hardship thwart social justice.
This wider perspective explains the rulings cited on both sides
and the law of subsequent events on pending actions.
8. In P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders (AIR
1976 SC 1409) this Court dealt with the adjectival activism
relating to post institution circumstances Two propositions were
laid down. Firstly, it was held that
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...13...
'it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to
relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor
institutes the legal proceeding'.
This is an emphatic statement that the right of a party is
determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action is
instituted. Granting the presence of such facts, then he Is
entitled to its enforcement. Later developments cannot defeat
his right because, as explained earlier, had the court found his
facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his decree.
The Court's procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal
justice or rights crystallized in the initial cause of action. This
position finds support in Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab, (1971) 1
SCC 34."
27. In State of U.P. and others vs. Harish Chandra and others,
(1996) 9 SCC 309, Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"... ... ...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by
the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal
right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom
the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on
the date of the petition... ... ..."
28. In Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8
SCC 648, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will
be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is
sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is
sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of
the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing
wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing
wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in
seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the
continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates
a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the
exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or
administrative decision which related to or affected several
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...14...
others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the
settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be
entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-
fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay
as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim
involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting
others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of
laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential
relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles
relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a
consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief
relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the
date of filing of the writ petition."
29. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Punjab Poultry Field Staff
Association and others, (2002) 1 SCC 261; and Ex-Sepoy
(Washerman) Ram Khilawan Vs. Union of India and others,
(2019) 8 SCC 581, the monetary benefits have been restricted by the
Supreme Court for three years prior to filing of the suit.
30. In given facts and circumstances of a case, monetary
benefits may be denied or restricted to three years prior initiation of
proceedings, either with interest or without interest. This issue has to
be dealt with in each case on the basis of given facts and
circumstances. But equals are to be treated in similar manner. It is
also apt to record that this Court, wherever facts and circumstances
warrant so, has either restricted the monetary benefits to three years
from the date of initiation of proceedings or has denied the same.
Further, normally interest is imposed only for delayed execution.
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...15...
31. In the facts and attending circumstances of present case, in
terms of judgment reported in 1996 (5) SCC 54, titled as Shangrila
Food Products Limited and another vs. Life Insurance
Corporation of India and another, in order to do complete and
substantial justice inter se the parties while exercising writ jurisdiction,
benefit of Rishi's case, stated supra, needs to be extended to the
petitioner for the reasons stated herein below:-
"11. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take
cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and
substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being
extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the
principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote
honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained
by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage
gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before
granting relief....... ..."
32. Even otherwise, when a particular set of employees is given
relief by the Court, other identical situated persons need to be treated
alike by extending that benefit, and not doing so would amount to
discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
33. In present case, for otherwise strong merit in the case, in
order to prevent exploitation of victims for omission and commission
on the part of mighty Corporation, taking into consideration the
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...16...
circumstances of the petition and incapability and consistent efforts of
petitioners to approach the Court, invariably delay and laches may be
ignored for adjudication of issue raised in the appeal and Writ Petition
on merits. Therefore, we are of the considered view that petitioners,
in present appeal, are not liable to be deprived monetary benefits
from due date, on the ground of delay and laches. But they shall not
be entitled for interest on delayed payment and actual monetary
benefits are to be granted with reference to date of initiation of first
proceeding/petition, claiming relief prayed in present matter.
34. Despite having bestowed status of custodian of rights of its
citizens, State or its functionaries invariably are adopting exploitative
method in the field of public employment to avoid its liabilities,
depriving the persons employed from their just claims and benefits by
making initial appointments on temporary basis, i.e. contract, adhoc,
tenure, daily-wage etc., in order to shirk from its responsibility and
delay the conferment of work-charge status or extension of benefits of
regularization Policy of the State by not notifying Policies in this
regard in future. Present case is also an example of such practice.
35. Now, for finding the reasons assigned by HRTC, denying the
benefits of regularization after eight years of service to the petitioners,
devoid of merit, the petitioners are entitled for regularization after
eight years of service from the date of their initial appointment.
2025:HHC:16059
CWPOA Nos.5730 of 2020 and
connected matters
...17...
36. Accordingly, respondent-Corporation is directed to regularize
the services of the petitioners on completion of 8 years of daily wage
service from initial date of appointment with all consequential
benefits, and issue appropriate orders for the said purpose with all
consequential benefits. However, the actual monetary benefits are
ordered to be extended to the petitioners for three years prior to filing
of the present petitions, and prior to that the monetary benefits shall
be on notional basis. Appropriate order extending consequential
benefits be issued on or before 30.6.2025. Consequential monetary
benefits be disbursed to them within eight weeks thereafter.
37. The petitioners shall not be entitled for interest on arrears in
case benefits are extended in aforesaid time, failing which the
petitioners shall be entitled for interest @6% per annum.
All the petitions are allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
( Vivek Singh Thakur )
Judge.
( Ranjan Sharma )
May 26, 2025(sd) Judge.
