IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15125 of 2025 Decided on: 30th October, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hukam Chand …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna RewalDua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod K Gupta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna RewalDua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vinod K Gupta, learned Counsel, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. The petitioner has prayed for grant of actual benefits with effect from the date when his services were regularized retrospectively and has assailed the action of the respondents in releasing him notional benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner is that:- 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 2 3(i). Petitioner’s name was sponsored through Employment Exchange for the post of Driver. After holding proper interview, driving test and completion of training in the month of August, 1999, he was appointed as Driver on 23.05.2000 (on contract basis) for a period of 89 days. The petitioner joined his duties on 23.05.2000 itself.Petitioner’s appointment letter contained a condition that he will be considered for regular appointment by the appointing authority after completion of one year of service. 3(ii). The respondents regularized the services of the petitioner on 05.02.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred CWP No.9824 of 2013 with the grievance that he had not been regularized by the respondents as per the terms & conditions mentioned in his appointment order. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.01.2014 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and also taking into account the fact as to whether services of any of similarly situated person have been regularized. 3(iii). The respondents passed consideration order on 03.06.2014 holding that the petitioner was entitled for regularization of his services after completion of one year of service as per the policy applicable at the time of his initial appointment. Accordingly, petitioner’s representation was 3 accepted and his services were regularized w.e.f. 23.05.2001 instead of 06.02.2011, but on notional basis. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is that he is entitled to all financial benefits flowing from the date of his retrospective regularization on actual basis. That the order passed by the respondents, restricting the actual financial benefits and granting him only notional benefits w.e.f. 23.05.2001, is not justified as the petitioner was in service & had been discharging his duties all along and also it was the condition of his appointment order that his case was to be considered for regularization after looking into his performance of one year of service. In support of the relief prayed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of a decision dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of petitions with lead case being CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. This position is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. In view of the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to 4 extract the operative part of judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed in Vikram Singh’s case, supra:- “29. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in the claim of petitioners and same is accepted, whereas plea of the respondents- Corporation is rejected being not sustainable. Petitioners are held entitled for regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. However, we are not awarding any interest thereon, at this stage. The consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioners within one month from today, arrears whereof shall be paid to the petitioners on or before 30.04.2024, failing which the respondents- Corporation shall also be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.” 6. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed in Vikram Singh’s case, supra and the directions issued therein, this petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release consequential benefits admissible to the petitioner in light of his retrospective regularization under order dated 03.06.2014 on actual basis. The arrears of admissible consequential benefits be released to the petitioner on or before 31.03.2026, failing which the benefits shall be liable to be released with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till the actual date of payment. 5 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 30, 2025 Judge R.Atal