IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2200 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 04.03.2025 1 CWP No. 2200/2025 Madan Lal …Petitioner Versus HRTC & another .…Respondents. 2 CWP No. 2201/2025 Amarjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents. 3 CWP No. 2218/2025 Narinder Singh …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 4 CWP No. 2220/2025 Gautam Rana …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 5 CWP No. 2221/2025 Ram Rattan …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 6 CWP No. 2222/2025 2 Rattan Chand …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 7 CWP No. 2529/2025 Kamla Devi …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 8 CWP No. 2530/2025 Malka Devi …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 9 CWP No. 2531/2025 Parkasho Devi …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 10 CWP No. 2485/2025 Mohinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 11 CWP No. 2209/2025 Manohar Lal …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 12 CWP No. 2213/2025 Suresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 3 13 CWP No. 2217/2025 Kamal Dass Thakur …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 14 CWP No. 2214/2025 Prem Parkash …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents. 15 CWP No. 2215/2025 Hans Raj …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 16. CWP No. 2219/2025 Dharam Singh …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 17. CWP No. 2211/2025 Rajender Kumar …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 18. CWP No. 2210/2025 Ghanshyam Sharma …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 4 19. CWP No. 2207/2025 Ram Lal and another …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents 20. CWP No. 2607/2025 Jagat Ram …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another .…Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Skandh Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar Mr. Deepak Sharma and Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocates, for the respondents in the respective petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Mr. Deepak Sharma and Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned Standing Counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of the respondents in the respective writ petitions. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 5 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents for grant of pension allowance at 5%, 10% and 15% of the basic pension/family pension on attaining the age of 65 years, 70 years and 75 years, respectively. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similar issue was decided by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2929 of 2015 (Sh. Brij Lal and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another). That O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents (therein) to release arrears of due and admissible dearness relief and pension allowance of 5%, 10% and 15% on attaining the age of 65 years, 70 years and 75 years by the concerned retirees. Reference in this regard was made to Annexure P-1. It was further submitted that CWP No.8670 of 2023, preferred by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (respondent herein) against the aforesaid decision of the tribunal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.11.2023. Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No(s). 50794 of 2023, field by the HRTC against the judgment dated 07.11.2023, passed in CWP No. 8670 of 2023, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 25.01.2024. 6 The submission of the learned vice counsel for the petitioner(s) is that in view of the aforesaid decision, respondent- Corporation is liable to release the pension allowance at different slabs of 5%, 10% and 15% on petitioners’ attaining the age of 65 years, 70 years and 75 years. It has further been submitted that the petitioners’ representations for redressal of this issue have not been attended by the respondent. Hence, these Writ petitions. 5. Learned vice counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be content if the cases of the petitioners are considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgments within a time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection for this prayer. Having regard to above submissions all the petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 4th March, 2025(rohit)