IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8032 of 2021 with CWP Nos.8036, 8037, 8038, 8326 of 2021 and 493, 494, 1173,1174,4751,7840 of 2022, CWP No. 5424,5801 of 2023 & CWP No. 10029, 10031 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 8032 of 2021 Vikas Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 2. CWP No. 8036 of 2021 Reena Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 3. CWP No. 8037 of 2021 Suman Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 4. CWP No. 8038 of 2021 Rakesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 5. CWP No. 8326 of 2021 Dinesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 6. CWP No. 493 of 2022 Dharam Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 2 7. CWP No. 494 of 2022 Tek Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 8. CWP No. 1173 of 2022 Bhupendra Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 9. CWP No. 1174 of 2022 Charrian Behal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 10. CWP No. 4751 of 2022 Nirmala …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 11. CWP No. 7840 of 2022 Mohit Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 12. CWP No. 5424 of 2023 Ravinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents 13. CWP No. 5801 of 2023 Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 14. CWP No. 10029 of 2025 Gopal Dass …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 3 15. CWP No. 10031 of 2025 Pawan Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar and Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocates, in the respective petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the respondent-Corporation, in the respective petitions. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since common question of law and facts are involved in the above captioned cases and similar relief has been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases, heard them together and the same are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in the cases at hand, is whether petitioners herein, who admittedly were given appointment against Class-III & IV posts on compassionate ground prior to the year, 2019, are entitled to be appointed on regular or on daily wage basis. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 3. It is not in dispute rather stands admitted on behalf of the respondents that petitioners were appointed on Class-III & IV posts on compassionate grounds in terms of policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for compassionate appointment in the year, 1990, wherein admittedly, there was no provision to give appointment on compassionate grounds on daily wage basis, rather at the relevant time, policy was silent with regard to nature of appointment to be given on compassionate grounds. For the first time, provision to grant appointment on compassionate ground to Class-III & IV employee on daily wage/ contract basis came to be incorporated in the policy of 2019 promulgated by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Parties to the lis are in agreement that prior to promulgation of 2019 policy, in some of the cases appointments on compassionate ground were given on regular basis, but in some cases appointment was given on daily wage/contract basis. Vide notification dated 13.04.2007, issued by Secretary(Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh Class-III Services (Clerk/Steno-Typist/Statistical Assistant ) Common Recruitment Rules, 2007, came to be promulgated, wherein for the first time, provision of contractual appointment came to be incorporated in R&P Rules. Parties are in agreement that pursuant to afore notification, decision was taken by Government of Himachal 5 Pradesh to give compassionate appointment qua Class-III post on contract basis, but certainly aforesaid Notification, dated 13.04.2007 does not cover the category of Class-IV employee, which ultimately came to be covered in the policy of 2019, whereby Government of Himachal Pradesh decided that now appointment on compassionate ground on Class-IV post shall be made on daily wage basis. 5. The grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in afore petitions, which are duly supported by the affidavits, is that though they were given appointment on compassionate ground on Class III and IV posts, prior to issuance of notification/ policy, 2019, but yet they have been given appointment on daily wage/contract basis, which is contrary to the law. 6. To substantiate aforesaid plea, much reliance has been placed upon judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 2570 of 2013, titled as Lekh Ram vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which further came to be upheld in LPA bearing No.42 of 2015 titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Lekh Ram alongwith connected matters. Though, respondent-HRTC laid challenge to aforesaid judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal No.1557-1564 of 2019, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation versus Lekh 6 Ram etc., but same also came to be dismissed, as a result thereof, law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 2570 of 2013, titled as Lekh Ram vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, came to be upheld. Before taking note of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP, as detailed hereinabove, it would be apt to take note of relevant portions of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court herein- below:- “4.This Court has considered the rival contentions addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 5. It is apparent that the petitioner, despite his name having been approved for appointment on a compassionate basis by the screening committee constituted by the respondent- corporation in the year 2002, was not issued an appointment letter by the respondent-corporation, hence was driven to institute a CWP against the respondent. The litigation unsuccessfully ended against the respondent-corporation. The respondent-corporation during the pendency of the contempt Petition preferred at the instance of the petitioner before this Court had in the year 2012 appointed him as a Clerk on a contractual basis. The respondent-Corporation having been ultimately unsuccessful in the litigation inter-se it and the petitioner, perse bespeaks the fact of the invalidity or untenability of the stand as espoused by them in various Courts, besides when a right to appointment accrued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2002 on his name then having been approved for appointment on compassionate basis, denial of appointment to him was untenable. In other words the petitioner had a fructified right to be appointed by the respondent-corporation on his name having come to be approved by the screening committee in the year 2002. As a corollary thereto when the respondent-corporation as portrayed by Annexure P-12 had in the year 1999 explicitly proclaimed therein of appointees on compassionate basis initially appointed on a contractual basis and who while successfully completing one year of contractual service on acquiring eligibility were to be regularized which proclamations therein have not been displayed by cogent material to be not inexistence nor applicable at the time of the petitioner’s name having been approved by the screening committee for appointment on compassionate basis, i.e. in the year 2002, at which stage a fructified and a ripened right accrued to the 7 petitioner to claim appointment against the post for which his name stood approved by the screening committee. Consequently then the stand as espoused by the respondent Corporation in the Annexure aforesaid is to be held to be available to the petitioner. Moreso, when qua the other contractual appointees on a compassionate basis a proclamation therein is of the appointees on successful completion of one year of contractual services enjoying a right subject to eligibility claim appointment on a regular basis. Therefore, when the operation of the Annexure aforesaid to the case of the petitioner would obviate discrimination interse the petitioner and the persons enumerated therein while being similarly situated in as much as, theirs and the petitioner all being appointees on compassionate basis. Consequently, to beget equality and parity, it would be expedient and just that the benefit afforded to the appointees in Annexure aforesaid be also considered to be afforded to the petitioner. The aforesaid directions would also obviate stalling of or abortion of the fructified and ripened right of the petitioner for appointment in consonance with Annexure aforesaid, in the year 2002, as had accrued to him then on his name having been approved by the screening committee. Even though, the counsel for the respondent contends that the R&P Rules do not envisage that the appointees on compassionate basis be regularized in service in the manner as envisaged in Annexure P-12, nonetheless the ambit and amplitude of the R&P Rules do not cover appointments on compassionate basis. Rather, the appointments on compassionate basis are governed by the Annexure aforesaid which has not been proven to have overridden or overruled by any apposite amendment made in the R&P Rules, rather Annexure aforesaid is to be held to be holding the field qua the conditions of the service governing the appointees on compassionate basis. Besides when the Annexure aforesaid is to be concomitantly construed to be in consonance with the policy of the respondents governing appointments on compassionate basis and when the applicability of Annexure to the case of the petitioner is anvilled on the touchstone of obviating inequality, their applicability would promote justice. Consequently, the conclusion qua applicability of Annexure P-12 qua the case of the petitioner is also arrived at on the strength of the accrual of a right of appointment available to the petitioner in the year 2002 at which stage for reason aforesaid the operation of the Annexure aforesaid qua the petitioner has been concluded to hold sway and command. As a natural corollary its effect, cannot be whittled down or diluted as then it would beget inequality interse similarly situated persons. 6. Consequently, upshot of the above discussion is that in case the petitioner has joined services with the respondent corporation then his case be considered to be dealt with in consonance with Annexure P-12 within a period of six weeks. 8 Petition stands disposed of, as also pending applications, if any.” 7. Relevant portion of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.42 of 2015, upholding the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, is also reproduced herein below:- “3. The controversy viz. a viz. applicability of the policy stands settled by this Court in its latest decision in Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, Latest HLJ 2016 (HP)(DB) 113, wherein, amongst others, following two questions were framed by this Court: “(ii) Which date would be relevant viz. a viz. applicability of the Policy - whether the date of death of the employee or the date when the application was presented, for the first time, for seeking employment on compassionate ground or the date on which the application came up for consideration before the Authorities, and whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be decided on the basis of subsequent amendment, when the application was presented prior to such amendment? (iii) If an applicant was in lis and his case was directed to be reconsidered, whether the claim of such applicant is to be determined as per the policy which was existing at the time of passing the order or as per the policy which was in place at the time of staking claim for the first time or as per the policy existing at the time of consideration?” 4. After dilating upon different decisions of the Apex Court, this Court held that the case of the applicant would be considered as per the provisions of the Policy prevalent at the time when, for the first time, the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made to the Department. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 63 and 64 of the said decision hereunder: “63. Applying the ratio to the cases in hand and keeping in view the provisions of the Policy in question, we hold that the date of death of the employee is not to be taken into consideration while seeing the applicability of the Policy. Similarly, the date on which the application comes up for consideration before the competent Authority is also of no importance, since, because of the lackadaisical approach of the Departments, such cases may have been kept pending for a pretty long time and during that period, the policy may have been amended. Thus, the applicants, in such circumstances, cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the Authorities. 64. Accordingly, we hold that the case of the applicant would be governed by the provisions of the Policy which was in place at the 9 time when the application, for the first time, was made by the applicant to the Department, and in the case of a minor, the right to apply would commence from the date he/she attained majority, as given in the Scheme and his/her application would be considered as per the Policy/Scheme which was in vogue at the time of presenting the application. In the matters where the Court or the Tribunal has directed the Authorities to consider the case of the applicant afresh, the claim of the applicant has to be determined as per the policy applicable at the time of presenting the application for the first time before the Department concerned. Points No.(ii) and (iii) are answered accordingly.” 5. In view of above discussion, all the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of by directing the writ respondents to examine the cases of the writ petitioners in light of the decision of this Court in Surinder Kumar’s case supra and the observations made herein above, and make a decision within a period of six weeks from today. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.” 8. Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding aforesaid finding returned by learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court and dismissing the SLP, having been filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, held as under:- “The issue which now remains to be considered is as to whether these employees who have been regularized would be entitled to the benefit of the period since the date on which they were appointed on contractual terms until the date of regularization. The order of the High Court dated 12 January 2012 was confirmed by this Court on 8 March 2013. The High Court specifically directed that the case of Lekh Ram had to be considered in accordance with the policy in existence on 20 October 2000 when his father retired from service. Before us, it has not been disputed that the policy which was in existence then did not stipulate the making of such an appointment on contract. Lekh Ram, as an eligible employee whose claim for compassionate appointment had been accepted by the appellant, was entitled to be appointed as a regular employee. The case of the other seven employees stands on the same footing. The appellant was manifestly in error in appointing them on contractual 10 terms. This was not in accordance with the policy which was to be applied in terms of the judgment of the High Court, as affirmed by this Court. All the employees continued to work from the initial date of their appointment in 2012-13 on a contractual basis and even thereafter when they were regularized. Under the judgment of the High Court, as affirmed by this Court and the governing policy, they were entitled to regular appointment. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to order and direct that each of the eight employees to whom these appeals relate would be entitled to the benefit of all the regular terms and conditions of service with effect from the initial dates of their appointment on contractual terms, as indicated in the chart extracted above. The above period of service shall also be reckoned for seniority and for terminal benefits as and when they fall due. Arrears of salary payable to the respondents on this basis shall be computed and paid over within two months from the date of this order.” 9. While placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment, precise claim of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the afore petitions, is that since at the time of their appointment on compassionate grounds, policy in vogue was silent about the nature of appointments, they ought to have been given appointments against Class-III and Class-IV posts on regular basis instead of daily wages. 10. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Clause 2 of policy of 1990 herein below:- “2. To whom the policy is applicable:-The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or a son or an unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. servant to father, mother, bother and unmarried sister) of:- (a) a Govt. servant who dies while in service( including by suicide) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. 11 (b) A daily wage employee who dies while in service after having rendered at least 5 years service with not less than 240 days on daily wage basis in a year ( to be computed as an average of the number of days served in the preceding years) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. In such cases compassionate employment would be on daily wages only. (c) A Govt. servant who has been missing for more than two years and the family needs the immediate assistance. (d) A Govt. servant (Class-III and IV only) who retires on medical grounds under rule 38 of the CCS(Pension ) Rule ,1972. Provided the employee so retiring has not crossed the age of 63 years and 55 years in case of Class-III and IV respectively.” 11. Clause 2(b) of the policy, as extracted hereinabove, clearly reveals that where deceased employee was daily wage employee, in that case only appointment on compassionate ground was to be given against Class-IV post on daily wage basis, meaning thereby wards of other deceased employees, who were working on regular basis were essentially required to be given appointment on compassionate ground on regular basis. 12. As has been discussed hereinabove, vide Notification dated 13.04.2007, Government of Himachal Pradesh for first time notified “Himachal Pradesh Class-III Services (Clerk/Steno- Typist/Statistical Assistant) Common Recruitment Rules, 2007” prescribing therein that Class-III post in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall be filled up on contract basis. 12 13. Though, while placing reliance upon aforesaid notification, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that since common recruitment Rules, 2007 specifically provided for appointment on Class-III post on contract, persons appointed against Class-III posts after issuance of aforesaid notification on compassionate ground cannot claim appointment on regular basis, rather appointment, if any, given to them on compassionate ground after issuance of aforesaid notification shall be on contract basis, but definitely not on regular basis. However, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute that policy of 1990, promulgated by Government of Himachal Pradesh for compassionate appointment to the kith and kin of government employee, who died in harness came to be revised in the year, 2019, wherein for the first time, it came to be incorporated that appointment qua Class-III & IV posts on compassionate ground shall be made on daily wage and contract basis. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to policy of 1990, strenuously argued that policy of 1990 nowhere talks about appointment, if any, to be given on regular basis, especially on compassionate ground. He submitted that since policy of 1990, nowhere suggests that ward of deceased employee, who died in harness, shall be given appointment qua Class-III & IV post on regular 13 basis and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while offering appointment to the petitioners being wards of deceased employee on daily wage/contract basis. 14. As has been taken note hereinabove, if policy of 1990, especially Clause 2-b, as reproduced hereinabove, is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that only such applicants, who are/were wards of daily wage employee, who died in harness, are/were to be given appointment on compassionate ground against Class-III & IV posts on daily wage basis. True it is that save and except Clause 2-b, as reproduced hereinabove, there is no specific mention in the policy with regard to nature of employment to be given to the wards of deceased employee in the policy of 2019, but once specific provision has been made therein i.e. Clause 2-b stating therein that wards of daily wage employee, shall be given appointment on daily wage basis, inference can be drawn that ward of government employee, who was on regular rolls shall be provided appointment on compassionate ground on regular basis. Moreover, this Court finds that aforesaid aspect of the matter has been already taken note of by Division Bench of this Court while upholding the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and view taken by Division Bench of this Court has been further upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lekh Ram’s case (supra). 14 15. At this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that judgment passed in Lekh Ram’s case would not apply to the respondent-State because same was passed in the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which is governed by its own by-laws and regulations and same are not applicable to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute that policy of 1990, which ultimately came to be amended in 2019 was being applied by the respondent-Corporation for considering the applications of wards of deceased employees for compassionate appointment. Besides above, learned Additional Advocate General has also not been able to dispute that both the policies of 1990 and 2019, which are subject matter of the case are promulgated by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 16. Leaving everything aside, analogy and ratio decidendi in the judgments pressed into service by the petitioners will remain the same and shall apply to all including the respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that otherwise also, very purpose and object of granting appointment on compassionate ground is to ensure that family of the deceased government employee is not left to starve after death of the employee and once such object has been already achieved by 15 granting appointment to the petitioners on contract and daily wage basis, which was otherwise accepted at relevant time without there being any protest, subsequent prayer for regularization from the date of initial appointment cannot be accepted. He further submitted that after 13.4.2007 common R&P Rules have come into force prescribing therein that Class-III post shall be filled up on contract basis, no appointment on compassionate ground after afore date qua Class-III post can be given on regular basis as is being claimed by some of the petitioners. He further submitted that in case prayer made in the instant petitions is accepted that may cause grave injustice to such of the employees, who after issuance of notification dated 13.04.2007 whereby common R&P Rules 2007 came to be promulgated were given appointment on contract basis qua Class-III post. He further submitted that persons, who are given appointment in the year 2007 on merit may become junior to petitioners, who in the event of petitions being allowed, may not only become senior but would be doubly benefited. First appointment to the post in question without there being any competition and secondly they would become senior to those persons, who are/were otherwise recruited through regular process. 17. Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation also made submissions on similar lines as 16 have been made by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. 18. Before considering merit in the aforesaid submissions of learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, it is once again noticed at the cost of repetition that notification dated 13.04.2007, whereby common R&P Rules for the categories of Clerk/Steno-Typist and Statistical Assistant came to be notified, no provision has been made to offer appointment to Class-IV employees on contract basis, meaning thereby all the arguments raised by the counsel, named hereinabove, are not applicable in the case of such of the petitioners, who have been offered appointment on daily wage basis against Class-IV post. As far as petitioners, who have been given appointment against Class-III post on daily wage basis are concerned, this Court is of the view that though common R&P Rules, 2007 which came to be notified vide communication 13.04.2007 provide for appointment on contract basis qua Class-III post, but it is not in dispute that policy of 1990 for appointment of kiths and kins of deceased employees on compassionate ground, which subsequently came to be amended in 2019, nowhere provided for appointment on daily wage basis be it Class-III and Class-IV employee. 19. Interestingly, though respondents by way of notification dated 13.04.2007 promulgated common R&P Rules, 2007 for the 17 categories detailed hereinabove, prescribing therein that Class-III posts shall be filled up on contract basis, but failed to amend policy of 1990 for compassionate appointment thereby prescribing that with the promulgation of common R&P Rules, 2007 all the appointments on compassionate grounds in terms of policy of 1990 now shall be made on contract basis. Respondent-State failed to bring change in 1990 policy, which otherwise had become necessary pursuant to promulgation of common R&P Rules 2007, notified vide notification dated 13.04.2007. If the policy of 1990 for appointment on compassionate ground is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that Class-III & IV posts on compassionate ground, shall be filled up on contract basis, rather it came to be incorporated in the aforesaid policy that appointment on compassionate ground can be made only to the lowest rung of Class-IV and Class-III posts. The compassionate employment can be given against Class-III posts on contract basis, in case the applicant has requisite qualifications prescribed for job as per R&P Rules. It also provided that in case the deceased was a daily wage worker, the employment assistance shall be given on daily wage basis only. For the first time, it came to be incorporated in the policy of 2019 that compassionate employment against Class-IV posts will only be on daily wage basis, meaning thereby all appointments given against Class-IV post prior to afore date were 18 essentially required to be made on regular basis. As far as appointment against Class-III posts is concerned, though vide common R&P Rules, 2007 notified vide notification 13.04.2007, Government decided that all Class-III posts shall filled up on contract basis but till the year 2019, no change/amendment was carried out in policy of 1990, which nowhere speaks of appointment against Class- III posts on contract basis. Even in 2019 policy word “can” has been used, meaning thereby in appropriate cases appointment against Class-III post on compassionate ground can be made on regular basis also. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce para-4 of revised policy for providing compassionate employment to the eligible dependants of the deceased employees of the State Government herein below:- “4. Post to which such appointment can be made:- The compassionate appointment is to be provided basically in the department to which the deceased Govt. employee or the medically retired government employee belonged, subject to fulfillment of minimum educational qualifications and such skills as are prescribed for the post. In exceptional cases, where the post does not exist in the Department concerned, the said Department may recommend appointment in another department, to the Finance Department, subject to availability of vacancies in the concerned Department. On receiving the request, Finance Department will send the matter to the concerned Department to consider the appointment. The appointment on compassionate grounds can be made only to the lowest rung of Class –IV and Class-III posts. The compassionate employment can be given against Class-III posts on 19 contract basis, in case the applicant has requisite qualifications prescribed for the job as per R&P Rules. In case the deceased was a daily waged worker, the employment assistance shall be given on daily wage basis only. Compassionate employment to be given against on Class-IV posts will only be on daily wage basis. Under no circumstances, appointment(s) should be made against Class-III posts, which require technical/professional qualifications.” 20. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that though with the issuance of notification dated 13.4.2007, Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to fill up the posts of Class-III on contract basis, but since amendment in that regard in the policy of 1990 for compassionate appointment came to be incorporated in 2019 policy, all the appointments given prior to afore date, be it Class- III and Class-IV are/were essentially on regular basis, as has been otherwise held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lekh Ram’s case(supra). 21. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petitions and accordingly same are allowed and appointment given to the petitioners on compassionate grounds from the date of their initial appointment shall be deemed to have been given on regular basis. Further in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lekh Ram’s case (supra) and in CWP No. 7556 of 2022, titled Rahul Attri and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020 titled Vikram Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation along with connected 20 matters, petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23, 2025 (shankar)