1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.106 of 2025 Reserved on : 08.04.2026 Decided on : 17.04.2026 Uploaded on : 17.04.2026 Nanak Ram Thakur …… Appellant Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.8408 of 2023, titled Nanak Ram Thakur vs. HRTC & Anr., whereby, the writ petition filed by the present appellant, has been dismissed, claiming interest on monetary benefits. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the case at hand are that the present respondents had retired the appellant compulsorily, on medical grounds, on 29.05.2003. The same was challenged by instituting 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP(T) No.10720 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of, on 23.11.2009. Since, in the writ petition, it was not disputed that the lis was covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No.7979 of 2008, titled Puran Dutt vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 21.08.2009, therefore, respondents were directed to comply with the directions contained in Puran Dutt’s case (supra), in the case of the appellant within eight weeks. 3. The respondents vide order dated 22.06.2010 had ordered the appellant to be treated in service from the date of his retirement, on medical ground, i.e., 29.05.2003 upto the date of his attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2007. No back wages had been granted to him. Being aggrieved of the non grant of back wages, T.A. No.4999 of 2015 was filed, which was allowed on 07.12.2015 by the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. Vide the said judgment, the appellant was deemed to be in service from 19.05.2003 and was held entitled to all consequential benefits, i.e., full salary and allowances. No time limit for paying consequential benefits had been fixed in the judgment. As is evident from Paragraph-4 of the impugned judgment, the judgment dated 07.12.2015, passed in T.A. No.4999 of 2025 was implemented by payment of arrears of salary in November 2017, February 2018 and July 2018. Leave encashment and revised gratuity were paid in March, 2019. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellant filed CWP No.8408 of 2023, wherein, impugned judgment was passed. In the said petition, 3 the sole contention raised by the appellant is with respect to non payment of interest from 30.11.2007 (date of superannuation) till consequential benefits were paid in the year, 2017/2018/2019. 5. In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned Single Judge has correctly held the appellant not entitled to any interest. It has been correctly observed by the learned Single Judge that reliefs cannot be claimed in piece meal manner. For relief, which should have been sought and has not been sought would be barred by constructive res judicata under Section 11 (Explanation iv) of the Civil Procedure Code. In this respect, reliance has been correctly placed by the learned Single Judge on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay vs. T.P. Kumarnan (1996) 10 SCC 561. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, when back wages were granted vide judgment dated 07.12.2015 by the Erstwhile Tribunal in T.A. No.4999 of 2015 filed by the appellant, conspicuous by absence was an order with respect to the payment of the consequential benefits with interest. Non grant of such relief was never assailed by the present appellant, hence, now the appellant is estopped from claiming interest on the consequential benefits so granted, in a fresh petition filed. 7. Other than the aforesaid, it has been correctly observed by the learned Single Judge that reliefs with respect to one cause of action should be claimed in one petition. Filing of multiple writ petitions, on same or similar cause of action is illegal. 4 8. In view of above, present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 17th April, 2026 (KS)