IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15260/2026 Decided on: 10.09.2026 Randhir Kumar …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner retired from the post of Driver in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation on 31.10.2025, on attaining the age of superannuation. His grievance in the instant petition concerns the non-payment of overtime allowance amounting to Rs. 4,73,338/-, as assessed by the respondents in the office letter dated 01.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), which, according to the petitioner has not been paid to him. 2. Following order was passed in this matter on 02.09.2026: - 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 “Notice. Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Let the respondents place on record instructions as to why the overtime allowance assessed in Annexure P-1 has not been paid to the petitioner as alleged. List during the course of next week. Application, if any, disposed of.” Pursuant to the above, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has placed on record detailed point-wise office instructions dated 09.09.2026. The said office instructions are categorical that liability to pay the overtime allowance to the petitioner subsists on the part of the respondent-Corporation. In terms of the documents appended with the office instructions, such liability comes to Rs. 4,21,404/-, out of which some amount is stated to have been paid to the petitioner. The office instructions project financial constraints of the respondent-Corporation to liquidate the outstanding overtime allowance liability towards the petitioner. 3. It is well settled that paucity of funds is no ground for not releasing the amount due and admissible to the employees, more so while considering the cases of release of terminal benefits to the retired employees. D.S. Nakara & Ors Vs. Union of India2 holds that ‘pension is a right, its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a 2 (1983) 1 SCC 305 3 Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension’. Relevant paras from the judgment reads as under :- “20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.3 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. v. Iqbal Singh.4 21……………… 22. In the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from undeserved want was recognised and as a first step pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The quid pro quo, was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert he rendered unto master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount, (see Retirement Systems for Public Employees by Bleakney, page 33.). 23-27………………… 3 [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 634 4 (1976) 3 SCR 360 4 28. Pension to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education5 a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want.” In North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors.6 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the State cannot be allowed to plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors, otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. In Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.7 observed that non- availability of financial resources would not be a defence available to the appellant Bank in taking away the vested rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socio economic security. It is an assurance that in their old age, their periodical payment towards pension shall remain assured. The pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty and it is for the appellant to divert the resources from where the funds can be made available to fulfil the rights of the employees in protecting the vested rights accrued in their favour. 5 302 US 74 83 L. Ed. 57 6 (2021) 17 SCC 642 7 (2022) 4 SCC 363 5 4. The petitioner had retired on 31.10.2025. He is still awaiting the release of his retirement benefits. The liability of the respondent-Corporation towards the petitioner on account of overtime allowance is not in dispute. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to make payment of the admissible overtime allowance to the petitioner expeditiously, within a period of not later than four weeks from today. This amount shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date it was due till realization. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th September, 2026(rohit)