Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... vs Rajeev Kumar
2026 Latest Caselaw 1161 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... vs Rajeev Kumar on 26 February, 2026

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

                                                1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                       CMP (M) No. 1803/2025 &
                                       Review Petition No. 6/2026.
                                       Decided on: 26.02.2026
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others




                                                                                 .
                                       .....Applicants/ Petitioners





                                Versus
    Rajeev Kumar                              .....Respondent
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram





    Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
    Whether approved for reporting?1




                                                     of
    For the Applicants/Petitioners:Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar,
                                   Advocate.

    For the Respondent:    rt          Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate, appears on behalf

of sole respondent and filed memo of appearance.

Heard. There is 55 days delay in instituting the

Review Petition. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/

respondent has no objection for allowing the prayer. Even

otherwise sufficient grounds have been made out for

condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay in instituting

the Review Petition is condoned. Application stands

disposed of.

Review Petition No.06/2026.

Be registered.

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

With the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, matter has been heard.

2. Petitioners- Himachal Road Transport

Corporation seek review of Rajeev Kumar versus

.

H.R.T.C and others2 decided as under:-

"Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, leaned counsel, accepts service of notice on behalf of the

respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

of "B. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued, whereby quashing the impugned orders dated: 06.01.2025 & rt 06.03.2025 which are contained in Annexure P-6 & 7 for all intents and purposes.

C. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued, whereby directing the respondents to continue the petitioner on the pay previous to re-fixation for all

intents and purposes and also not affect the recovery from the pay of the petitioner and thus render justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner for redressal of his

grievances raised in this writ petition has already been adjudicated upon and covered by Dilbag singh Vs, HRTC & Ors.

Learned counsel for the respondents admits above position and submits that decision rendered in Dilbag Singh has been accepted by the respondents.

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, Annexures P-6 and P-7, dated 06.01.2025 and 06.03.2025, respectively are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with order that directions issued in Dilbag Singh shall mutatis mutandis apply to the

CWP No. 11348/2025 decided on 16.07.2025

case of the petitioner. Respondents shall implement the directions in Dilbag Singh vis-à-vis petitioner within six weeks from today.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of."

3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that

.

the case of writ petitioner/present respondent is not

covered by Dilbag Singh versus H.R.T.C and others3.

That facts in Dilbag Singh3 were different from that of

present respondent. Learned counsel for the parties

of submitted that inadvertent statement was made by the

learned counsel during hearing of the writ petition about the rt case of respondent being covered in terms of Dilbag

Singh3.

I have also considered the pleadings of the

instant Review Petition giving facts of the present

respondent. The judgment rendered in Dilbag Singh3 has

also been placed on record during hearing of the case. It is

evident that facts of two cases are not similar.

4. In view of above and in view of fair stand taken

by learned counsel for the parties, the judgment dated

16.07.2025 passed in CWP No.11348/2025 stands recalled.

Matter is ordered to be restored to its original number.

Review Petition stands disposed of.

                                                            Jyotsna Rewal Dua
    February 26, 2026                                              Judge
           yogesh

CWP No.11982/2024, decided on 28.04.2025