1 2025:HHC:33996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Ex. Petition No. 712 of 2025 Date of decision: 06.10.2025 ________________________________________________________ Gauri Lal …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present Execution Petition seeks the benefits given by the Judgment dated 28.12.2022, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No. 8448 of 2022, titled Gauri Lal Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another (Annexure E-1), whereby the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 matter was held to be squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Single Bench in CWP No. 3097 of 2014, titled as Devender Chauhan Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, dated 01.04.2015. Resultantly, the petitioner got the benefits of overstay allowance, as had been prayed for in the writ petition. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench had passed the directions to the respondents to pay the overstay allowance to the petitioner from the due date within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Review Petition No. 87 of 2023, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another Vs. Gauri Lal also came to be filed by the State before this Court, which was dismissed on 27.07.2023. In the said Review Petition, a specific plea was taken that during the winter session, the employee had not served in Keylong and he was temporarily shifted to Kullu alongwith other staff, for which T.A. and D.A. were allowed to him and, 3 therefore, he could not be granted the benefit of overstay for the period during which he had served at Kullu and therefore, the distinction was sought to be called for in terms of the judgment in Devender Chauhan, case (supra). 4. It is further the case of the employee that Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21743-21744/2023, arising out of order dated 28.12.2022, passed in CWP No. 8448 of 2022 and order dated 27.07.2023, passed in Review Petition No. 87 of 2023 was dismissed on 19.12.2024, and, therefore, the litigation has become final. The Apex Court also noticed keeping in view the fact that there was concession recorded in paragraph 3 in the first impugned order, given by the Counsel for the Corporation. 5. It is thus the grouse of the learned Counsel for the employee that the stand of the State as such to fall back on the letter dated 21.11.2015 clarifying that due to Lahaul and Spiti District (Keylong) being covered with snow for about half of the year, the employees 4 posted at Keylong were being shifted by the HRTC to Kullu every year during the period from November to April and after the winter season was over, the employees were again shifted to Keylong, would not be valid defence in execution. Therefore, the clarification which had been sought whether overstay allowance was to be granted to the petitioner or not also could not come to the aid of the respondents. The necessary clarification had been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Tribal Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 31.12.2015, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter was taken up with the Finance Department, which was of the view that six months period spent by HRTC employees at Kullu should be excluded for counting the same for overstay allowance. Therefore, the amount of overstay allowance only to the tune of Rs. 3,27,016/- had been paid. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has pointed out that the matter as such 5 was decided initially on 28.12.2022, i.e. on the first day by waiving of service of notice upon the respondents and, therefore, it was only on the basis of concession without clarifying the said issue, in principle, whether the amount of overstay has to be paid to the employee or not by calling for the reply. In view of peculiar situation and the fact that the employee had received the benefit of normal posting at Kullu for more than six months, we are not inclined to accept the prayer as such of the Counsel for the petitioner that he may be granted the benefit of overstay allowance, once he had served at Kullu during winter session. The whole purpose as such is to obliterate the hardships of the employee on account of stay at Keylong during winter season being cut-off from rest of the world as the Rohtang pass being covered by snow and the road not being accessible, over the pass. 7. It is also to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench had decided the writ petition on the basis that the issue was covered by Devinder Chauhan’s 6 judgment, (supra). We have also gone through the said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The employee as such had been posted at Rekong Peo and thus, there is nothing on record to show that there was any such similarity to the extent that Rekong Peo could not be accessed for the period of six months and so on and that the said employee had been shifted from the said place to another place which is not cut-off from rest of the world. Rather, in view of the factual matrix as such, the benefit of overstay had been granted for the period during which the employee had stayed at Rekong Peo. Resultantly, the claim as such of the employee for the period, he had stayed at Kullu, has rightly been excluded by the Corporation. 8. Now, the issue remains of interest only. The amount of Rs. 3,27,016 has been paid to the petitioner on 12.3.2024 as per (Annexure E-5). Admittedly, even the directions were passed on 28.12.2022 to pay the overstay allowance within a period of four weeks, failing which interest was to be paid at the rate of 9% per 7 annum from the date of the judgment, which the Corporation did not comply with and got itself foisted with penal clause of interest. 9. Resultantly, we dispose of the present Execution Petition with the direction that the interest be calculated on the above amount and be paid to the petitioner and payment of the same be made within a period of six weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10 . Accordingly, the present Execution Petition stands disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. October 06, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.