1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11022 of 2026 Decided on: 14.07.2026 Rakesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, the pleadings, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the nature of the order being passed hereinafter, there is no requirement to call for reply to the writ petition. The matter has been heard accordingly. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is against the office order dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby the benefits granted to him under the 4/9/14 Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) have been withdrawn. The 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 benefit has been withdrawn only on the ground that the 4/9/14 ACPS promulgated on 09.08.2012 was introduced in the respondent-Corporation on 06.08.2014, whereunder an option was to be furnished by the employees enjoying the benefit of the old ACPS to opt for 4/9/14 within a period of two months. In terms of the impugned order, the option was not exercised by the petitioner within two months from the date of issuance of the instructions dated 06.08.2024 (sic 06.08.2014). The case set up by the petitioner is that he has enjoyed the benefit of the 4/9/14 ACPS for years together, therefore, the financial benefit given to him by the respondent-Corporation from a particular date, without there being any concealment of facts on his part, could not have been withdrawn by the respondent-Corporation without complying with the principles of natural justice. The impugned office order does not even reflect that any notice was issued to the petitioner for withdrawing the benefit given to him under the 4/9/14 ACPS. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned office order dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The respondent-Corporation, however, is at 3 liberty to proceed in the matter afresh, in accordance with law. In view of above, the instant petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 14, 2026 Judge yogesh