( 2026:HHC:20349 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4579 of 2019 Decided on: 26thMay, 2026 Vijender Singh ....Petitioner versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge(Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Mechanic/Technician w.e.f. 1.12.2000 with all the consequential benefits including promotion, if any, to the full compliance of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Single in its judgment dated 8.1.2013.” 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner after doing matriculation, did his diploma in the trade of Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) from ITI Solan in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 2 July,1999, which was of two years duration. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the respondents- Corporation for one year w.e.f. 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2000. Thereafter his apprentice period was extended for another year w.e.f. 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2001. During this period, the petitioner discharged his duties as Motor Mechanic. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were orally terminated on 04.12.2001. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by his oral termination had filed the Original Application before the learned Administrative Tribunal, but for want of jurisdiction, the petitioner was asked to approach the Industrial Tribunal. When the dispute was not resolved, the State Government had made a reference for adjudication before the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., who vide award dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure P-3) had answered the reference and ordered that the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity, but without back wages, after completion of apprentice period w.e.f. 1.12.2000. While making the claim, the plea of the petitioner was that he was engaged as Motor Mechanic with the respondents-Corporation. Despite the award passed in favour of the petitioner, he was not ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 3 reinstated immediately. Vide office order dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure P-4), he was reinstated in service, but on the post Junior Technician, on contract basis, on the fixed remuneration of Rs.3500/- per month with seniority and continuity, without back wages w.e.f. 1.12.2000, whereas he was to be re-engaged as Motor Mechanic. The petitioner immediately made a representation to the Deputy Divisional Manager of the respondents-Corporation to consider his prayer and offer him appointment as Motor Mechanic, however, when nothing was done, the petitioner had made another representation dated 04.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation. However, when no decision was taken on the request of the petitioner, he had approached this Court by filing CWP No.10721 of 2011, titled, Vijender Singh vs. Managing Director and another, claiming that the respondents- Corporation be directed to reinstate him as Motor Mechanic after completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 04.12.2009 and regularize his services as Motor Mechanic with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, seniority etc. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-7), directing the respondents to consider the ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 4 claim of the petitioner and accord him all benefits under the policy framed by the State within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. It was further directed that all monetary benefits as may be found due and admissible shall be disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s). 3. The respondents-Corporation feeling aggrieved by the said order had filed LPA No.134 of 2013, titled, HRTC and another vs. Vijender Singh and the same was dismissed on 18.06.2013 (Annexure P-10). After dismissal of the LPA, the respondents-Corporation had issued an office order dated 30.08.2013 (Annexure P-11) and the services of the petitioner were regularized as Junior Technician (Motor Mechanic) w.e.f. 31.01.2011 in the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+1900 Grade Pay, as per State Government policy with all consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by not regularizing his services on the post of Motor Mechanic, which post is also called as Technician Grade-II (Mechanic) and further not regularizing his services w.e.f. 01.12.2000 has approached ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 5 this Court by way of present petition. He has averred that his services were not regularized after completion of 8 years of service and thus the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the respondents-Corporation is totally illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was initially engaged as Motor Mechanic (Technician) w.e.f. 01.12.2000 and had been performing the duties of Motor Mechanic/Technician since then and as such, ought to have been regularized on the said post. Further, the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Technician w.e.f. 31.01.2011 is totally contrary to the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 20.06.2009. The Labour Court had adjudicated the matter of the petitioner on the post of Motor Mechanic (Technician) and once he had been appointed as Mechanic/Technician from the very beginning and had been performing the duties as such till date, he ought to have been regularized on the said post. Further, the respondents- Corporation while passing the order dated 30.08.2013 though regularized the services of the petitioner as Junior Technician/Motor Mechanic w.e.f. 30.01.2011,but he has not been paid the arrears of salary etc. w.e.f. 30.01.2011 till 30.08.2013. The petitioner ought to have been given the benefits of regularization and promotion after completion of ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 6 eight years of service as Motor Mechanic and not as Junior Technician on contract basis. 5. The respondents-Corporation filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present petition. The petitioner was appointed as apprentice by the respondents-Corporation and regularized after completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 31.01.2011 as per order passed by this Court in CWP No.10721 of 2011. The petitioner has been reinstated and thereafter stands regularized. It has been averred that the petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the respondents-Corporation w.e.f. 01.12.1999 for a period of one year, which was completed on 30.11.2000 and after completion of apprentice period, he was given extension of one year w.e.f. 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2001. There was complete ban imposed by the Government on fresh recruitment, but keeping in view shortage of staff, it was decided to engage the apprentices for two years. After expiry of said period, the apprenticeship agreement was terminated on 04.12.2001. It has been admitted that the petitioner had completed eight years of service as on 31.12.2008 and his case was covered under the policy for cut-off date as on 31.03.2009. However, his case for regularization was also ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 7 considered alongwith the employees, who were regularized under the policy to avoid any disparity and legal complication. It has also been averred that the petitioner was not engaged as per the provisions of R&P Rules and there is no provision in the R&P Rules for engagement of services as apprentice. The post of Mechanic is a promotional post and services of the petitioner have been reinstated/regularized as Junior Technician. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. It has been averred in the rejoinder that the petitioner as per policy of the Corporation was immediately entitled for regularization within a period of one year w.e.f. 30.11.2001 and not w.e.f. 31.01.2011. The petitioner was working as Motor Mechanic being ITI Diploma holder from the very beginning and was to be given the benefit of seniority and continuity as Motor Mechanic only. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that as per award dated 20.06.2009, passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, the petitioner was ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 8 ordered to be re-engaged in service forthwith with seniority and continuity after completion of apprentice period w.e.f. 1.12.2000, but without back wages. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner when appointed as apprentice was having diploma of Motor Mechanic. Once the petitioner was having diploma of Motor Mechanic and was further engaged as an apprentice with the respondents-Corporation, he was appointed against the post of Technician Grade-II (Mechanic), on which post, he discharged his duties and not on the post of Junior Technician. Therefore, his services were not to be engaged on the post of Junior Technician after passing the award by the Labour Court and thereafter regularizing on the same post. In the reply to the claim petition preferred by the petitioner, it was admitted by the respondents-Corporation that the name of the petitioner was sponsored for undergoing apprentice course in the trade of Motor Mechanic and once he was sent for undergoing the apprentice training in the trade of Motor Mechanic and as per the agreement, the petitioner had agreed to discharge the duties related to the Motor Mechanic, which fact has been specifically mentioned in the reply to the claim petition preferred by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, it cannot be construed that the ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 9 petitioner was not discharging the duties of Motor Mechanic. In the reply to the claim petition, the respondents- Corporation had specifically mentioned that the petitioner was asked to attend the break down vehicles outside the station/workshop along with senior skilled officials (mechanics) of the Corporation, which was a part and parcel of his apprenticeship training in the Motor Mechanic Trade. Once the respondents had admitted that the petitioner was discharging the duties, which is to be performed by the Motor Mechanic, after passing of the award by the learned Labour Court, he could not have been offered appointment to the post of Junior Technician on contract basis, which would be contrary to the job being performed by him. So far as the plea taken by the respondents-Corporation that there is no provision in the R&P Rules for appointment directly on the post of Motor Mechanic post, is concerned, as per R&P Rules for the post of Technician Grade-II (Mechanic) in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 10% posts were to be filed-up by direct recruitment and rest 90% i.e. (i) 75% by promotion and 15% through LDR. Once the petitioner had discharged the duties on the post of Motor Mechanic, irrespective of the fact that the Rules were not in place to engage him even directly ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 10 to the said post, cannot be an impediment to grant him benefits, once he was from the very beginning had discharged the duties on the post of Motor Mechanic. The respondents- Corporation have also pleaded that there is no provision in R&P Rules for engagement of services as apprentices, then why did they engage the petitioner as apprentice. Once the respondents-Corporation had extracted the work from the petitioner as Motor Mechanic and further, he was possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post, he cannot be denied the benefit of the said post. The petitioner immediately after offering him appointment as Junior Technician, vide office order dated 22.09.2009 had made a representation on 29.09.2009 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter on 04.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) and when his grievance was not redressed, he had approached this Court by way of petition, which came to be disposed of on 08.01.2013, directing the respondents to accord him all the benefits under the policy framed by the State. 9. No doubt, after the directions given by this Court, the respondents-Corporation had passed an order to regularize the services of the petitioner, but it was on the post of Junior Technician (Motor Mechanic), whereas his services ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 11 ought to have been regularized as Technician Grade-II (Mechanic). Another mistake, which the respondents- Corporation have committed, is to regularize the services w.e.f. 31.01.2011, whereas as per award dated 20.06.2009, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity w.e.f. 01.12.2000 and once the petitioner had completed 8 years of service as on 01.12.2008, his services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2009 on the post of Technician Grade-II (Mechanic) with all consequential benefits. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was entitled for regularization of his services after completion of one year service, in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled, Vikram Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another along-with connected matters. However, this Court is not persuaded to accept the said submission for the simple reason that the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation had prayed that his services ought to have been regularized after completion of eight years of service and this Court while accepting the prayer of the petitioner had given the direction to the respondents-Corporation to consider his ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 12 case and pay him all benefits under the policy framed by the State. Once the petitioner had not raked up the plea earlier to regularize his service after completion of one year of service, the said plea cannot be accepted at this stage and as such the same is rejected. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation has vehemently argued that services of the petitioner have been regularized along-with other contractual employees, who were regularized under the policy after completion of eight years of service as on 31.03.2009 and, therefore, to avoid any disparity and legal complication, the services of the petitioner were also regularized from the said date. Once the learned Labour Court had passed the award specifically holding that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated forthwith with seniority and continuity after completion of apprentice period w.e.f. 1.12.2000, just to avoid complication, the regularization of the petitioner could not have been deferred for two years, especially when he had completed eight years of service as on 01.12.2008, which fact has been admitted by the respondents-Corporation in the reply. The action on the part of the respondents-Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Technician (Motor ( 2026:HHC:20349 ) 13 Mechanic) is also bad for the reason that once the respondents-Corporation having extracted work from him as Motor Mechanic, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization and his engagement on the said post on any technical pleas. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-Corporation are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2009 on the post of Technician Grade-II (Mechanic)/Motor Mechanic with all consequential benefits such as seniority, continuity, increments etc. The respondents-Corporation is directed to pay the arrears within three months from today. In case the same are not paid within three months, the petitioner is held entitled to the interest @6% per annum from today, till its payment to him. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 26th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)