IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11280 of 2026 Decided on: 16th July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashok Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar and Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was engaged as Driver on contract basis in the respondent- Corporation as an Ex-serviceman on 16.08.2021. His services were regularized w.e.f. 12.10.2023 vide office order dated 18.10.2023. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-6), holding that the 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioner does not fulfil the criteria prescribed in the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, petitioner’s pay was re-fixed w.e.f. 12.10.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned office order dated 25.03.2026 has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered in Dilbag Singh Versus HRTC & Ors.2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority for redressal of his grievances and directions are issued to the said authority to decide the same in accordance with law within a fixed time schedule. Learned vice counsel appearing for the respondents though is not averse to this prayer, however, submits that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation before issuing the impugned office order. 2 CWP No.11982/2024, decided on 28.04.2025 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a representation to the respondents/competent authority within two weeks from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law keeping in view of the applicable Rules as also the aforesaid decision rendered in Dilbag Singh2, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 16, 2026 Judge Mukesh