2026:HHC:21218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7905 of 2026 Decided on : 02.06.2026 Uploaded on: 03.06.2026 Raj Kumar .…Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Shivani, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Notice. Mr. V.S. Kanwar, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. The writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and memorandum dated 18-11-2023 (Annexure P-2) office order dated 21-02-2024 (annexure P-4) and letter dated 13-06-2025 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:21218 II. That penalty imposed on petitioner for stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect may be quashed and set aside and benefits of annual increment already withheld may be restored at its original position, along with all consequential benefits alongwith 9% interest.” 3. A perusal of letter dated 13.06.2025 appended with the petition as Annexure P-7, demonstrates that in terms of this order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner stands rejected by passing a non-speaking order by stating that the appeal was time barred without even hearing the party. Impugned communication is quoted herein below:- “Subject: Regarding appeal against the order no.9020 dated 21.02.2024. Memo; Reference your appeal dated 16.05.2025 received in this office on 26.05.2025, on the subject cited above. 3 2026:HHC:21218 The undersigned has duly considered your appeal and rejected the same devoid on merit being time barred.” 4. Having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not sustainable in law. As the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Authority before the Appellate Authority, said appeal could not have been dismissed in the mode and manner, in which, the same has been. The Appellate Authority was duty bound to have had heard the appeal and thereafter, it could have passed appropriate orders on the appeal, including on the issue of limitation. However, a Quasi Judicial Authority cannot reject the appeal in the mode and manner, as has been done in the present case. 5. This Court reiterates that whenever an appeal is preferred before a Quasi Judicial Authority, may be a time barred appeal, the Appellate Authority is duty bound to give a hearing to the party concerned and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. As this has not been done in the present case, therefore, present petition is allowed on this count and Annexure P-7, dated 13.06.2025, is quashed and set aside 4 2026:HHC:21218 and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) June 02, 2026 Judge (narender)