2025:HHC:29203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.5775 of 2020 Reserved on: 21.08.2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 Vijay Singh ...Petitioner Versus HRTC & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate vice Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Reeta Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for following substantive relief: “(i) That the office order dated 26.07.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent the regularization made w.e.f. 19.01.2002 on notional basis, on the pretext of which, the arrears of salary due from 19.01.2002 to 15.04.2011 have been denied to the applicant.” 2. The case as set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor on contract basis in Hamirpur Division of HRTC on 29.03.1997. His services were terminated vide office order dated 06.06.1999 on the charge of misconduct. The appeal of the petitioner against the order of termination was allowed by 2 2025:HHC:29203 the Managing Director of respondent-Corporation vide order dated 04.01.2001 and the applicant was reinstated. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 05.04.2011. 3. Petitioner raised the grievance that his services were liable to be regularized from the date when his juniors were regularized. Petitioner had filed CWP No.3840 of 2011, which was later transferred to the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and was registered as TA No.4341 of 2015. Learned Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid Transfer Application vide order dated 13.09.2017 and the respondents were directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the applicant in terms of judgment passed in the case of Jagdish Chand and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, CWP No.9279 of 2011, decided on 09.01.2014. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation issued impugned order dated 26.07.2018 and ordered the regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.01.2002 on notional basis. 4. Now, aggrieved against the impugned office order dated 26.07.2018, the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief, as noticed above. The petitioner claims actual monetary benefits from the date of regularization. 5. The Respondent-Corporation is contesting the claim of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on contract basis w.e.f. 3 2025:HHC:29203 29.03.1997 for a period of one year. His services were terminated vide office order dated 28.05.1999. The said order was later set aside by the appellate Authority and the petitioner was reengaged afresh; therefore, the petitioner could not be considered with other Conductors for regularization after completion of one year service from initial engagement into service. It has further been submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 19.01.2002 on notional basis. He was granted benefit of annual increments. However, no arrears were to be granted to the petitioner as per instructions of the Finance Department. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. The facts are not in dispute. The initial appointment of the petitioner in the year 1997 was as Conductor on contract basis. His services were terminated in the year 1999. The order of termination of the petitioner was set aside by the Managing Director, HRTC vide order dated 04.01.2001. The petitioner was ordered to be appointed afresh on contract basis for a period of 6 months. It was also ordered that nothing would be payable to the petitioner for the intervening period from the date of termination till the date of joining afresh. Consequently, the office order dated 20.01.2001 was issued by Regional Manager, HRTC, Dehra, 4 2025:HHC:29203 whereby the petitioner was engaged afresh as Conductor on contract basis for a period of 6 months w.e.f. 20.01.2001. 8. The services of the petitioner were ordered to be regularized vide office order dated 05.04.2011 w.e.f. 03.01.2009. The said order purportedly was issued in respect of those incumbents, who had completed 8 years of continuous service as on 31.03.2009. 9. In TA No.4341 of 2015, learned Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Jagdish Chand (supra). In compliance, the impugned order dated 26.07.2018 was issued, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 19.01.2002 on notional basis. 10. This Court finds the impugned order dated 26.07.2018, Annexure A-7, to be cryptic and non-speaking. It neither mentions the reasons for granting benefit of regularization of services to the petitioner w.e.f. 19.01.2002 nor for denial of actual benefits. It is more than settled that the administrative order having evil and civil consequences should be followed by the reasons, as it is only through the reasons, the justification of the order can be inferred. As noticed above, the impugned order is without any reasons and hence, on this account alone cannot 5 2025:HHC:29203 be sustained, to the extent it denies actual benefits to the petitioner. 11. In result, the impugned order dated 26.07.2018, Annexure A-7, is set aside to the extent the actual benefits were denied to the petitioner with direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order after reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. Needless to say, the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner and in case, the petitioner still remains dissatisfied, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. 12. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge August 29, 2025 (vt)