IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7760 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 28th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.7760 of 2025 Kirpal Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.7762 of 2025 Vijay Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.7764 of 2025 Tarsem Chand …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.7766 of 2025 Rashpal Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.7768 of 2025 Gurdev Chand …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6. CWP No.7770 of 2025 Kishan Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.7772 of 2025 Purshotam Lal …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.7774 of 2025 Hukam Chand …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.7776 of 2025 Purshotam Dass …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge All these petitions are identical, based upon same set of pleadings, claiming same relief, hence, are taken up together. 2. Petitioners are retired employees of the respondent-Corporation, aged between 63 to 70 years. They have prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “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.” For convenience, facts and averments from CWP No.7760 of 2025 are being adverted to. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 01.09.1989. He superannuated on 31.01.2019. Six years after his superannuation, he instituted this writ petition seeking Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- has been claimed solely on the basis of a decision rendered in Pardeep Kumar and others Versus State of Punjab and others2. The aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinafter:- 2 CWP No.17592 of 2015, decided alongwith connected matter on 23.04.2024 by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 4 “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 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.” 5 From the above judgment, it can be deduced that claim was made by the Conductors in the State of Punjab, inter alia, 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, but the petitioners (therein) were permitted to submit representations, which were to be decided by the authorities. There is no authoritative pronouncement on the subject matter. Present petitioners’ reliance upon the above decision to claim Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011 is wholly misplaced. Further, pay scales of the State of Punjab are not ipso facto applied in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record instructions dated 28.05.2025 to the effect that “Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) is a fully 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 ibid Act; the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a Corporation shall vest in a Board of Directors, which, with 6 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. Thus 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 is implemented in respect of the employees of the Corporation only after the adoption and approval by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. It is also submitted here that the issue of Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- on the Punjab Pattern has never been adopted and approved by the BOD of the respondent Corporation”. In view of above, the bald relief claimed by the petitioners with no basis, whatsoever, cannot be granted. There are no pleadings, whatsoever, as to on what basis the petitioners are claiming the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.3200/-. No foundational facts for claiming the reliefs have been pleaded in the writ petitions, save & except that Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- had been allowed in the State of Punjab for the post of Conductor. The only document placed on record in support of even this assertion is a decision, which also does not lend support to the facts 7 pleaded. As observed earlier, the said judgment did not decide the matter on merits. Save & except making reference to the said judgment, no substantive pleadings find mention in the petitions. So much so that the petitions do not even disclose as to what prevented the petitioners from instituting these writ petitions at an appropriate stage. The delay and laches in claiming the reliefs has also not been explained. Accordingly, the writ petitions, being devoid of merits, are dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh