IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11343 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dharam Pal …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 25.05.2024 quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to grant two additional increments, on completion of twenty years service from the due date. 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 30.06.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 202 of 2024, titled as Devinder Singh Vs. HRTC & Anr. and judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 11344 of 2025, titled as Gian Chand Vs. HRTC & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that in year 1977, petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent-Corporation and he had completed 20 years of service as Driver in the year 1997. After having served respondent-Corporation for more than 30 years, petitioner retired on 31.08.2007. Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation in its 130th meeting held on 17.05.2015 decided to allow two additional increments to the Conductors, who have completed 20 years of service in HRTC, without availing any promotion. The benefit of two additional increments to the Drivers, in terms of afore notification, has been granted on notional basis from the date they completed twenty years of service in the respondent-Corporation and on actual basis w.e.f 01.07.2015. Though petitioner herein had become eligible for benefit, in terms of notification dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-4), on account of his having completed 20 years of service as Driver without availing any further promotion, but he has not been granted benefit of two additional increments and as such, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7758 of 2023, which was disposed of, vide order dated 18.10.2023 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously. 3 4. 3 4. Though pursuant to afore direction, respondents considered the case of the petitioner, but rejected the same, vide order dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that benefit of two additional increments on completion of 20 years regular service, is not admissible in the case of the petitioner because judgments pressed into service by the petitioner passed by erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 797 of 2016, titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. HRTC and Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4167 of 2019, pertained to Conductors, who have completed 20 years of regular service without any further promotion, not for Drivers. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as reproduced hereinabove. 5. In similar facts and circumstances, Division bench of this Court in CWP No. 202 of 2024, titled as Devinder Singh Vs. HRTC & Anr., held 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 4 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 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 respondents-corporation 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.” 6. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Devinder Singh (supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 28.07.2025, 5 passed in CWP No. 11344 of 2025, titled as Gian Chand Vs. HRTC & Ors., also held that Drivers of HRTC, who after having completed 20 years of service were not granted promotion, are entitled for two additional increments as was done in the case of Conductors. If the judgments passed by Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this Court are read in their entirety, it becomes evident that sole ground taken by the respondents to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner is that they have now withdrawn the earlier notification dated 10.09.2015, vide notification dated 17.10.2022, which issue has been already decided in judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4167 of 2019, titled as HRTC Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors., wherein identical benefits already stand accorded to the category of Drivers. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, impugned order dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 29, 2025 (Sunil)