2025:HHC:43254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.3709 of 2019 Decided on: 11.12.2025 _________________________________________________________ Parma Nand ...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport ...Respondents Corporation & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate vice Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. None for respondent No.3. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Parma Nand, a Conductor, deployed as Booking Clerk, has come up before this Court, claiming promotion as Inspector in Respondent- Corporation by seeking following relief(s):- “(i). That the promotion order of respondent No.3, dated 8.09.2008 contained in Annexure P-3 passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed by issuing a writ of mandamus. (ii). That the order contained in Annexure P-7 dated 05.03.2010 may kindly be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. (iii). That the respondent No.1 may kindly be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:43254 - 2 - directed to promote to the petitioner as inspector w.e.f. 8.9.2008 on which date the respondent No.3 was promoted as inspector after giving all consequential benefits by issuing a writ of mandamus. (iv). That the respondent No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to correct the seniority list showing the petitioner senior to respondent No.3 drawn as on 31.10.2005 contained in Annexure P-2 by issuing writ of mandamus.” 2. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he confines his claim only with respect to relief No. (iii), as extracted hereinabove. [Statement taken on record]. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Respondent-Corporation on 06.07.1973. While serving as Conductor, the Respondent-Corporation deployed the petitioner to work as Booking Clerk on 25.11.1989 and while the petitioner was deployed as Booking Clerk yet, the Respondent-Corporation has promoted Respondent No.3-junior incumbent as Inspector on 08.09.2008 [Annexure P-5]. It is averred that the petitioner has made a representation, which was rejected on 05.03.2010 [Annexure P-7]. 2025:HHC:43254 - 3 - STAND OF RESPONDENT-CORPORATION IN THE REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 4. Upon issuance of notice, the Respondent- Corporation filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 06.07.2010 of Regional Manager [Legal], Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla. 4(i). In the Reply-Affidavit, it is averred that Respondent No.3 was promoted as Inspector on 06.03.1975 from the cadre of Conductors and the aforesaid Respondent No.3 had submitted an option for being deployed as Booking Clerk by keeping his seniority intact in the feeder grade of Conductor. On the other hand, it is averred that the petitioner could not be promoted as Inspector, as he figured at seniority No.40 as Conductor and the petitioner had submitted an option for being deployed as Booking Clerk but without keeping his seniority intact in the feeder cadre of Conductor and therefore, the petitioner was not considered/promoted as Inspector in Respondent-Corporation. It is contended by Learned Counsel for Respondent-Corporation that after being deployed as Booking Clerk, the petitioner has lost his lien in the cadre of Conductor, therefore, he was not promoted as Inspector. 2025:HHC:43254 - 4 - 5. Be that as it may, Learned Counsels for the parties, jointly represent that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment passed in CWPOA No.5992 of 2020, titled as Prakash Chand versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 4.11.2023, which reads as under: 16. Present case is also not a case of transfer to a different cadre or to a different service amounting to appointment or selection by transfer but, as mentioned in memorandum, it was placement of senior most conductors as Booking Clerks. It is not recruitment by transfer terminating the lien of the employee in previous category or service but is a transfer simpliciter to a similar post resulting only in change of place and seat of employment and, therefore, there is no ‘termination of lien’. Thus in present case, the ingredients required for termination of lien are absent. The post of Booking Clerk may be of a post of different category, but of the same class as evident from posting orders and as such posting of petitioners as Booking Clerk is not a recruitment by transfer, but it is only placement by transfer to the post of Booking Clerk belonging to the same class, not resulting into termination of lien of the petitioners to the post of Conductors. 17. Petitioners were placed as Booking Clerks by transfer. Unless petitioners are appointed or recruited to the post of Booking Clerk, they will not acquire a lien to the said post and in absence of acquiring a lien to the post to which they have been placed by way of transfer, they shall not loose the lien to the previous post. Though, in R&P Rules to the recruitment to the post of Booking Clerk has been provided 100% by way of transfer, however petitioners have been posted against the said post by way of placement through transfer, therefore, their appointment as Booking Clerks cannot be termed as fresh appointment or promotion to the Booking Clerks and thus it is not a recruitment to the said post. Therefore, willingness given by the petitioners to be appointed as Booking Clerks cannot be treated as an option exercised by them for their promotion. 18. The exercise of option will be in a situation where 2025:HHC:43254 - 5 - there are two avenues of promotion available. In present case, post of Booking Clerks is not a promotional post, but is equivalent post available for posting by way of transfer/placement whereas promotional post available for Conductors is post of Inspector. There is no other channel of promotion available to the Conductors and thus plea of Corporation that by giving willingness to the post of Booking Clerks, petitioners have exercised their option for promotion, is not tenable. 19. Peculiar facts and circumstances in present case are not covered by circumstances provided in FR-13 and FR-14-A to terminate the lien and, therefore, petitioners’ lien to the post of Conductor cannot be treated to be terminated especially when the respondent Corporation itself has endorsed and followed this view and has acted accordingly by permitting similarly situated persons to withdraw their consent after their placement as Booking Clerks, and respondent Corporation has also reverted similarly situated persons from the post of Booking Clerk to the post of Conductor on its own even without filing a petition in the Court. Such act of the respondent Corporation establishes and substantiates the plea of petitioners that posts of Conductor and Booking Clerk are equivalent and placement to the post of Booking Clerk from Conductor is reversible and revertible and as such lien of person, posted as Booking Clerk through placement by transfer, remains alive to the post of Conductor and, therefore, such person has a right to remain in Seniority List of Conductors and also to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector as such. 20. Though in Sarvan Kumar’s case, CWP No. 4406 of 2021, it has been recorded in the order that, that case shall not be treated as a precedent, however, taking into consideration similar circumstances in CWPOA No.6521 of 2019, co-ordinate Bench has granted similar relief to the petitioners by observing that being similarly situated persons, petitioners in these cases were also required to be given same treatment. 21. Apart from the aforesaid discussion, in view of decisions in CWPOA No. 6521 of 2019, CWP Nos. 619 of 2020 and 4406 of 2021, petitioners are also entitled for similar treatment. Otherwise also, as discussed supra, on merits also petitioners are entitled to retain lien to the post of Conductor, as they were never appointed or promoted to the post of Booking Clerks from Conductors, rather it is evident from the material on record that posting of the 2025:HHC:43254 - 6 - petitioners as Booking Clerks was merely a placement by transfer which does not entail consequences of appointment/promotion to the post of different cadre. 22. Accordingly petitioners are also held entitled to be included in the seniority list of Conductors as per their original seniority in the cadre of Conductors and respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to them, including promotion as well as additional increments as were extended to their counter parts as well as other Conductors junior to them. Needles to say any extra benefits availed by the petitioners as Booking Clerk shall be adjusted against benefits extendable to them by their inclusion in the Seniority List of Conductors and they shall be given similar treatment as extended by the Corporation to the similarly situated persons at its own as well as in furtherance to the decisions dated 5.7.2023 and 15.3.2023 referred supra. 23. Needful be done by respondents within a period of one month from today. 24. Before parting with the case it would be apt to record that to avoid litigation and to provide fair, transparent and just treatment to all, an exercise, to carryout suitable amendment in R&P Rule, may be undertaken, if advised so and deemed fit, by the Corporation including abolition of quota of Booking Clerks for promotion to the post of Inspector but including Booking Clerks/Adda Conductors with other Conductors in common feeder cadre with common seniority list for promotion to the post of Inspector by specifically providing that the posts of Booking Clerk, Adda Conductors, Sub Inspector and Conductor etc., having same pay scale and similar responsibilities are interchangeable by placement through transfer, as per requirement of the Corporation.” 6. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on Instructions, states that since the claim of petitioner is covered in terms of the judgment in case of Prakash Chand (supra) therefore, he shall be satisfied, in case, Respondent-Corporation is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner, in the light of the judgment, in 2025:HHC:43254 - 7 - case of Prakash Chand (supra) and to pass appropriate orders in the matter within a reasonable period. [Statement Taken on Record]. The above prayer, made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation also. 7. Based on the judgment in the case of Prakash Chand (supra), this Court has adjudicated an identical matter in CWPOA No.3928 of 2019, titled Dhari Ram versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, decided on 06.12.2024, and its implementation is stated to be pending, as on day. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court disposes of the instant petition, with the following directions:- (i) Respondent-Corporation is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner, in terms of the judgment in CWP No.5992 of 2020, dated 4.11.2023, titled as Prakash Chand and others versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation which is stated to have been implemented also; by considering the petitioner for promotion as Inspector from due date i.e. the date the junior incumbent [Conductor], who was deployed as Booking Clerk, was subsequently promoted as Inspector; without discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other similarly placed junior 2025:HHC:43254 - 8 - Conductors; (ii) Upon consideration as in (i) above, in case, the petitioner is found otherwise eligible/fit, then, consequential benefits accruing therefrom be released to the petitioner by completing entire exercise within three months from the date of receipt of certified/downloaded copy of this judgment; (iii) No order as to costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 11, 2025 [Shivender]