IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7759 of 2025, CWP No.7763 of 2025, CWP No.7765 of 2025, CWP No.7767 of 2025, CWP No.7769 of 2025, CWP No.7771 of 2025 and CWP No.7761 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.7759 of 2025 Ramesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.7763 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No.7765 of 2025 Surinder Pal …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.7767 of 2025 Suresh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ 5. CWP No.7769 of 2025 Jagdev Singh …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ 6. CWP No.7771 of 2025 Bhagat Ram …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents -2- _______________________________________________________ 7. CWP No.7761 of 2025 Surinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, in all the petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above captioned cases and similar reliefs have been claimed, all the matters were heard together and are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Though, facts in all the petitions are common, as such, same are not required to be specifically referred from one particular petition, but since certain documents are required to be taken note of, this Court for the sake of clarity, shall take note of pleadings, as well as documents, adduced on record in CWP No.7759 of 2025, titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. HRTC. 3. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -3- “i. That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent Corporation to release the grade pay of Rs.3,200/-. ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to pay the grade pay as above along with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner with effect from due date till the date of its realization.” 4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings, adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit is that petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor with the respondent-department on 01.08.1980. After successfully rendering the services for almost 38 years, petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from the post of Inspector on 28.02.2018. 5. After almost seven years, petitioner herein has filed instant petition before this Court seeking grant of Grade Pay, as is applicable in the State of Punjab, in terms of judgment passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 23.04.2024, in CWP No.17592 of 2015, titled as Pardeep Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, wherein Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011 had been granted in favour of Conductors of Punjab Roadways (Annexure P-2), relevant Paras of which, reads as under: “2. The prayer in the present petitions is for quashing the order dated 20.02.2014 as well as the letter dated 16.01.2014 and consequential proceedings as also for directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of -4- Rs.10,300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs.3200 with an initial pay of Rs.13,500 w.e.f. 01.12.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that during pendency of the present petitions, substantive relief has been granted to them inasmuch as the anomaly stands removed, however, for the period from the year 2011 to 2021, the discrepancy/anomaly in the basic pay still remains which needs to be addressed by the respondents, with regard to which, the submission made is that as per the schedule appended with the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scale of Pay) Rules, 1969, the post of Conductor and Clerk were equated in the matter of grant of pay scale/emoluments. The position remained so till the issuance of notification dated 15.12.2011, implemented w.e.f. 01.12.2011, vide which Clerks were granted the revised scale of Rs.10,300-34,800/- with grade of Rs.3200 plus initial pay of Rs. 13,500/-, whereas similar benefit has been denied to the petitioners while working on the post of Conductors, thereby breaking the pay parity without any cogent reasons whatsoever. Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioners, pray that a fresh representation would be submitted by relying on the judgments supporting their claim, which may be directed to be decided in a time bound manner. 4. Learned State counsel has no objection to the limited prayer made. 5. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitions are hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioners submit representations within a period of 4 weeks, the same shall be considered and decided, within a further period of 6 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to them and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall contain reasons and the petitioners shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon.” 6. A perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that claim was made by the Conductors in the State of Punjab for the Grade Pay of Rs.3200/-, at par with Clerks, on the ground that under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scale of Pay) Rules, 1969, both posts were equated in the matter of grant of pay scale/emoluments. The said claim of grade pay was not adjudicated on merits by the Court, -5- however, the petitioners (therein) were permitted to submit representations, which were to be decided by the authorities. This Court finds that petitioners’ reliance upon the above decision for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011 is wholly misplaced. Further, pay scales of the State of Punjab, if any, are not applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondent-Corporation, has placed on record instructions dated 28.05.2025 to the effect that “Himachal Road Transport Corporation” (HRTC) is a State owned corporation and came into existence on 02.10.1974 as per the provisions under Section 3 of the Road Transport Act, 1950. As per the afore Act, the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors, which, with the assistance of its committees and Managing Director, may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the Corporation, as such, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has been empowered under the Act to take all decisions for the management of the affairs of the Corporation which includes the wages. It is further stated that the Pay Scales in the Corporation are implemented in respect of the employees of the Corporation only after the adoption and approval by the Board of -6- Directors of the Corporation. It is also submitted by Mr. Deepak Sharma here that Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- on Punjab Pattern has never been adopted and approved by the BOD of the respondent Corporation”. 8. In view of above, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent- Corporation that relief, as has been claimed in the instant petition, has been sought without there being any cogent and convincing material. Perusal of pleadings placed on record nowhere suggests that on what basis the petitioners are claiming the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.3200/-, for the post of Conductor at par with the State of Punjab. The only document placed on record in support of plea taken by the petitioner that they are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- is a judgment passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that in afore judgment, High Court of Punjab & Haryana disposed of the writ petition, with the direction to respondents to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their representations, meaning thereby, High Court of Punjab and Haryana remained silent with regard to grant of Grade Pay of Rs.3200/-, as has been raised in the instant petitions and adjudicated the matter, without going into the -7- merits of the case. The delay and laches in claiming the reliefs has also not been explained. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same are dismissed, along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)