IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5907 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Rammi Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevan Kumar and Ms. Ekta Kumari, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Piece Meal Worker, has relied upon the decision taken by the Board of Directors of Himachal Road Transport Corporation in its meeting held on 13.02.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent-Corporation has decided to convert the services of Piece Meal Workers on contract basis. 2. Careful perusal of reply filed by respondents, if perused in its entirety, did not dispute factum with regard to applicability of aforesaid decision of Board of Directors in the case of petitioner, but an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no post is available, against which services of the petitioner can be converted on contract. 3. During proceedings of the case, Mr. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, made available copy of judgment dated 06.10.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4380 of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2023, titled as Inder Jeet Vs. HRTC and Another, wherein in similar facts and circumstances, direction came to be issued to grant benefit of conversion of service of the petitioner from Piece Meal Worker to contract within four weeks. He has also made available copy of order dated 16.12.2025 passed by Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, suggestive of the fact that decision taken in Inder Jeet (supra) has been implemented. 4. Since it is not in dispute rather stands admitted that petitioner is similar situate to Inder Jeet (supra), coupled with the fact that judgment rendered in Inder Jeet (supra) has attained finality on account of dismissal of review as well as LPA preferred by the respondents, against the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Jeet (supra), this Court sees no impediment in making directions issued in Inder Jeet (supra) mutatis mutandis applicable in the case of petitioner. Moreover, factum with regard to implementation of judgment in Inder Jeet (supra) has not been refuted and as such, petitioner, otherwise being similar situate, deserves similar treatment. 3. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Jeet’s case (supra) are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 06, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)