1 ( 2025:HHC:26521 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 5323 of 2020 Decided on: 06.08.2025 Dina Nath ...…..Applicant Versus Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant: Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge ( Oral ) The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs:- i) That the respondents may be directed to count the service rendered by the applicant from the date of his initial appointment as qualifying service for pension with all consequential benefits including the pay fixation may be on notional basis or in alternate the same and similar relief granted to S/Sh. Suresh Kumar II and Mangi Ram may be extended to applicant. ii) That the respondents may also be directed to revise the pension and other retiral benefits of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:26521 ) applicant and further may be directed to release consequential arrears accordingly. 2. The petitioner was appointed as daily wage driver in respondent corporation in the year 1973. His services were regularized in 1979. 3. The petitioner faced disciplinary inquiry in the year 1984 with a charge of willful disobedience from duty. The inquiry was held ex parte against the petitioner and finally penalty of removal from service was imposed on 30.09.1985. 4. The petitioner agitated his removal from service and during the conciliation proceeding held between the parties, the order of reinstatement of petitioner was passed by respondent corporation on 19.06.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner continuously worked and retired from service on attainment of age of superannuation on 30.08.2008. 5. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the period between the date of removal from service and reinstatement alongwith the past service of respondent should be considered towards qualifying service for pension only. 6. The respondents have not filed reply till date. 7. The record reveals that petitioner has placed reliance on instances vide Annexures A1 to A3 whereby the respondent corporation has granted the benefit to similarly situated persons namely, Suresh Kumar and Magni Ram. 3 ( 2025:HHC:26521 ) 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a submission that the petitioner being also similarly situated, should not be discriminated. He, in such circumstances, seeks direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also in light of aforesaid precedents by way of which the respondents have already taken lenient view in favour of similar situated persons. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in view of the stand taken by the respondent corporation in the cases of Suresh Kumar and Magni Ram, whose cases have been decided vide Annexures A1 to A3. The decision be taken within three months from the date of passing of order. 10. The petition is accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 06th August, 2025. (yogesh)