2025:HHC:31152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6861 of 2024 Decided on: September 11, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Dharam Chand ...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jia Lal Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner herein is aggrieved on account of non-payment of 144 days’ compensatory leave. Vide communication dated 27.12.2023, Annexure P-1, Deputy Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Kullu apprised the petitioner that 144 days’ weekly leave is available in his credit till 31.1.2020, but payment qua the same has not been made till date, rather the petitioner has been informed that his weekly leave will be payable, after audit by Section Officer (SAS). Since needful was not done by the respondent Corporation within reasonable time, petitioner has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking therein following main reliefs: “That the respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to releae the amount of 144 Sundays as per appropriate roster alongwith interest @ 2025:HHC:31152 - 2 - 12% per annum since 31.01.2020 till its realization by issuing a writ of mandamus.” 2. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed by the respondent. 3. On 3.9.2025, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent placed on record communication dated 2.9.2025 issued under the signatures of Executive Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla to state that claim put forth by the petitioner with regard to compensatory leave deserves to be rejected in light of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 72/2025 titled Ranbir Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, whereby Division Bench of this Court upheld the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1473 of 2024, titled Ranbir Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Afore writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In afore case, petitioner had retired on 31.3.2019, whereas he filed writ petition in the year 2024. Since, the petitioner in that case failed to explain delay of three years, writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. View taken by learned Single Judge came to be upheld by Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal vehemently argued that since the petitioner in this case retired in the year 2020 and 2025:HHC:31152 - 3 - he filed writ petition in 2024, prayer made in the instant case deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that judgment pressed into service is not applicable in the facts of present case. He submitted that though petitioner retired on 31.1.2020, but since he had been continuously writing to the Corporation with regard to payment of compensatory leave and respondent vide communication dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) apprised the petitioner that 144 days’ weekly leave stands credited in the account but same will be valid after audit by the Section Officer (SAS), plea of delay and laches is not available to the respondent. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner herein who was engaged as a Conductor in the year 1990, retired on 31.1.2020, as Sub Inspector. 7. True it is that with effect from 31.1.2020 and till the submission of application on 20.12.2023, by the petitioner, praying therein for payment of 144 days’ weekly leave, petitioner remained silent but once, respondent, vide communication dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) acknowledged the claim of the petitioner, specifically stating therein that 144 days weekly leave stands credited to the account of petitioner, but same shall be valid after its audit by Section Officer (SAS), plea of delay and laches sought to be raised by the respondent Corporation may not 2025:HHC:31152 - 4 - be available to it, once respondent itself vide communication dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) acknowledged the claim of the petitioner with regard to credit of 144 days weekly leave in the account of the petitioner, with further observation that same shall be valid as and when same are audited by the Section Officer (SAS), this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that after receipt of communication dated 27.12.2023, petitioner remained under the impression that as and when compensatory leaves are audited by the Section Officer, he shall be paid amount qua the same by the competent authority. 8. Since nothing was heard after filing of representation by the petitioner, he filed writ petition in the month of July,2024 i.e. after about six and a half months, from the date of receipt of communication dated 27.12.2023. Since, in the communication dated 27.12.2023, respondent had apprised the petitioner that the weekly leave will be valid, only after same is audited by the Section Officer of the respondent Corporation, action in that regard was only to be taken by Section Officer of the respondent Corporation, petitioner herein cannot be made to suffer on account of delay and laches. 9. Moreover, in the case at hand, delay, if any, cannot be compared to the case of Ranbir Singh supra, who after having retired in 2019, approached the competent court of law in the year 2024. Between said period, he neither made any representation nor any communication was 2025:HHC:31152 - 5 - received by him, from the competent authority, thereby acknowledging the claim of the petitioner, with regard to payment of compensatory/weekly leaves. 10. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, judgment pressed into service by respondent Corporation is not applicable in the facts of present case, since it stands duly established on record that 144 days’ weekly /compensatory leave is credited to the account of the petitioner and now same only remains to be audited/verified by Section Officer (SAS), this Court disposes of the present petition with a direction to the respondent to ensure that audit, if any, of 144 days’ weekly/compensatory leave is conducted by said officer, expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from today and thereafter, amount, if any, payable qua the same is paid to the petitioner. Writ petition, stands disposed of in the afore terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 11, 2025 (Vikrant)