Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 ( 2025:HHC:20686 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 202 of 2024 Decided on: 30.06.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Devinder Singh
....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. .…Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. _______________________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. S.P. Chatterjee & Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan
, Judge
(oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) To quash and set aside office order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P3), Notification dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P4) and letter dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure P5). (ii) To direct respondents to grant two additional increments, on completion of twenty years service by the petitioner as Conductor w.e.f. 15.07.2007 on notional basis, and on actual basis w.e.f. 01.07.2015 with consequential benefits, including retiral.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that since he had completed the requisite length of service of more than twenty
2 ( 2025:HHC:20686 years, therefore, he is entitled to two additional increments in terms of Notification dated 10.09.2015.
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sole ground taken by the respondents to deny such claim is that they have now vide Notification dated 17.10.2022 have withdrawn the earlier Notification, dated 10.09.2015 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of such Notification.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 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
3 ( 2025:HHC:20686 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 mis adventure 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 ( 2025:HHC:20686
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) 30th June, 2025 Judge (raman)