IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.182/2026 in Review Petiton 25/2026 Decided on: 06.04.2026 HRTC & Ors. …Petitioners Versus Jeet Singh .…Respondent ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. There is a delay in filing the review petition. The writ respondents/applicants have sought condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/writ petitioner has no objection for allowing the prayer. Apart from hearing learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings of the application have also been perused and the same make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. The application is allowed and stands disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Review Petition No.25/2026 Be registered. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Jeet Singh Vs. HRTC & Ors.2 instituted by the writ petitioner seeking benefits in terms of the decision rendered in Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 was allowed on 25.04.2025 as under: - “In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount of remaining retiral benefits to the petitioners with actual rate of interest as per applicable rules till the time of actual payment, which shall be paid to them within a period of six months from today. The due amount of payment, if delayed beyond six months, shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of its actual payment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Petitioners seek review of above decision. 3. The present petitioners, who were writ respondents, have now brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner had been facing departmental proceedings initiated vide Memo No. 8931 dated 13.03.2014, which remained pending till 11.04.2025. Further, FIR No. 18/2014 registered against the writ petitioner was 2 CWP No. 6758/2025 decided a/w connected matters on 25.04.2025 3 CWP No. 3050 of 2014 decided on 17.07.2014 3 pending trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una. The said trial resulted in acquittal of the writ petitioner on 12.03.2025. Therefore, in view of Rules 9 & 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the writ respondents could not have sanctioned/paid the gratuity to the writ petitioner prior to 12.03.2025. Taking note of the above facts, the judgment rendered in Jeet Singh2 is recalled qua the petitioner. The writ petition is restored to its original number. The review petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. CWP No. 6758/2025 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 4. It is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner is covered in terms of Nek Ram3 as also the subsequent order passed by this Court on 25.08.2021 in Sh. Subhash Chand versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla and others alongwith connected matters4. The respondents were directed to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of six months. In case the required retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, then in addition to the due 4 CWP No. 4377 of 2021 decided on 25.08.2021 4 statutory benefits, the petitioner shall also be paid interest @ 9% per annum beyond the period of six months till the date of actual payment. 5. In another subsequent order of this Court passed in Ram Lal versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another and the connected matter,5 the respondents were directed to make payment of gratuity to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of passing of the order. In the event of non-payment of due amount, the petitioners were held entitled to differential amount of interest between the amount of interest statutorily payable to the petitioners as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond six months. While disposing of Review Petition No.110 of 2021 on 25.11.2021, preferred against the order dated 09.11.2021 passed in CWP No.6928 of 2021, in which, the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2021 passed in CWP No.4377 of 2021 was relied upon, this Court has clarified the aforesaid order in the terms that the respondent-Corporation shall be liable to pay entire retiral dues of the petitioner, including gratuity, arrears of pension and leave encashment alongwith prescribed rate of interest, within a period of six months from the due date till the actual payment is made. 5 CWP No.6034 of 2021 decided on 23.11.2021, 5 6. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the remaining retiral benefits, statedly gratuity, to the writ petitioner, which was admittedly due to be paid to him on 12.03.2025, along with applicable interest beyond six months from the due date, within four weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th April, 2026(rohit)