2026:HHC:9345 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.8735 of 2024 Decided on: 25 th March, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________ Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus HRTC and another ...Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 08.09.2015 with all consequential benefits including pension.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order of removal from service dated 08.09.2015, had approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The said petition was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.6429 of 2019, titled, Mohinder Singh vs. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others. 3. This Court had disposed of the said petition on 06.03.2023, holding that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy available to him under law, and thus permitted him to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal afresh, if so advised, for redressal of his grievances regarding removal from service. It was further directed that in case such appeal is preferred on or before 28.03.2023, the same shall be decided by the appellate authority on or before 15.05.2023, and if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall exhaust the remedy of revision or review 3 as available under law. In case of filing revision/review, the same shall also be decided by the concerned authority within two months after filing. 4. The petitioner in sequel to the said directions, passed by this Court, had preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager, HRTC, Dharamshala, being appellate authority and the said authority had been pleased to pass an office order on 17.08.2023 without assigning any reasons, except that after careful consideration of the whole case and judgment passed by this Court as well as the service record of the petitioner, the authority is of the considered view that the orders passed by the Regional Manager, HRTC, Baijnath, are in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal/revision before the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation (Annexure P-2). However, the said authority had communicated to the petitioner vide 4 Annexure R-II appended with the reply on 11.12.2023 that there is no provision of second appeal in the Rules and, therefore, advised the petitioner to prefer Review under Rule 29-A of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. 6. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.08.2023, on the ground that the authority has not considered the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was discussed in detail while relegating the petitioner before the said appellate authority. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation. I have also gone through the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that this Hon’ble Court while deciding the petition on 06.03.2023 preferred by the petitioner had considered the law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in detail and thereafter directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority clearly mentioning in 5 unequivocal words that the authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law in light of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. However, the impugned order dated 17.08.2023, passed by the appellate authority is terse and bereft of any reasons and nothing has been considered. 9. Not only this, when the appeal/revision was filed by the petitioner before the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation, the same has not been entertained on the ground that there is no provision of second appeal. It is not in dispute rather admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation that the reviewing authority, under Rule 29-A of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, is the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation. 10. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, since this Court had given specific directions to the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision or review under law and the 6 petitioner has preferred the appeal/revision, the nomenclature of the same will not make much difference, since the review has to be decided by the same authority before whom the said appeal/revision has been preferred. Therefore, it is not appropriate on the part of the respondents-Corporation to advise the petitioner to prefer Review under Rule 29-A of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, rather, the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation ought to have considered the same as review petition, being the reviewing authority. 11. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director of the respondents- Corporation to decide the appeal/revision, treating the same as a review petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say, the reviewing authority shall consider the import of the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.6429 of 2019, titled, 7 Mohinder Singh vs. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, in right perspective as well as the order passed by the Divisional Manager, being the appellate authority. However, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court will not influence the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation to decide the review petition and the observations are only limited for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 25 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge