IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11344/2025 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Gian Chand …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as Conductor on 18.08.1977 in the respondents-Corporation. He took voluntarily retirement on 31.07.2005. Pursuant to decision of Board of Directors of the respondents-Corporation taken in its 130th Meeting held on 17.05.2015, conductors were allowed two additional increments on completion of 20 years of service rendered as such without getting 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 any further promotion. The respondents did not release the additional increments to the petitioner, resultantly petitioner instituted Gian Chand Vs. HRTC & Another2. Pursuant to the directions issued in the said petition, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it under office order dated 25.05.2024. Feeling aggrieved against the rejection of his case, petitioner has now instituted this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided against the respondents-Corporation in Devinder Singh Vs. HRTC & Anr.3 Relevant paras from the decision read as under: - “3. The sole ground taken by the respondents to deny such claim is that they have now vide Notification dated 17.10.2022 have withdrawn the earlier Notification, dated 10.09.2015 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of such Notification. 4. The issue in question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4167 of 2019, titled as HRTC Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors., decided on 29.11.2021, wherein, identical benefits already stand accorded to the petitioner. Though, it is a different matter that the respondents has totally misconstrued the orders passed by this Court. This is clearly evident from the fact that in the earlier litigation between the same parties (CWP No. 8863 of 2022, titled 2 CWP No. 5719/2023 decided on 23.08.2023 3 CWP No. 202/2024 decided on 30.06.2025 3 as Devinder Singh Vs. HRTC & Anr.), it was conceded by the respondents before this Court that the case of the petitioner was in fact duly covered by the judgment rendered in Suresh Kumar’s case (supra), as is evident from the opening lines of order dated 27.02.2023, which read as under:­ “The parties are ad idem that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4167 of 2019, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. decided on 29.11.2021.” 5. Therefore, under no circumstances the respondents­corporation after having conceded that the issue with regard to two additional increments which was duly covered under the judgment in Suresh Kumar’s case could not have deprived the petitioner of his accrued right. Obviously, in such circumstances, the respondents have indulged in misadventure by virtually sitting over the orders passed by this Court by denying two additional increments to the petitioner in terms of Notification dated 10.09.2015. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and order dated 27.04.2023, whereby, two additional increments have been denied to the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. However, since the petitioner approached this Court after the decision in Suresh Kumar’s case, we make it clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to two additional increments, but the interest thereupon shall be confined only to three years prior to the filing of CWP No. 8863 of 2022.” 4 4. In view of above, impugned order dated 25.05.2024 (Annexure P-3), is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in consonance with Devinder Singh3 and pass appropriate orders based upon the facts of the case within three weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th July, 2025(rohit)