2026:HHC:9177-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4639 of 2021 Decided on: 30.03.2026 Sh. Surinder Kumar … Petitioner Versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner by clubbing the service rendered by him in the HRTC and in the HPBCF&D corporation Kangra from the date of retirement i.e. 30/04/2019 alongwith interest till date. (ii) That in the alternative firstly the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to grant full pension along with interest to the petitioner w.e.f. 01/02/2009 for the 19 years and 6 months of service rendered by the petitioner in respondent No.1 corporation. Secondly, the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to grant pension with interest to the petitioner from 01/05/2019 for completion of 10 years of regular services in the respondent no.2 corporation. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:9177-DB Thirdly, the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to grant medical reimbursement to the petitioner as is admissible to the government employee as per the terms and conditions of the absorption.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that according to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Conductor on Daily Wage basis on 16.08.1989. His services were regularized w.e.f. 07.09.1989. He served the respondent-Corporation upto 30.11.1996. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, had applied to be posted as a Clerk on deputation basis with respondent No.2. In terms of Annexure P-1, dated 02.11.1996, respondent No.2 wrote to respondent No.1 to place the services of the petitioner at the disposal of respondent No.2 on deputation basis, initially for a period of one year and relieve him immediately. Vide Annexure P-2, i.e., Office Order dated 28.11.1996, the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of respondent No.2 on deputation basis. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to serve as such with respondent No.2. Vide Annexure P-3, he was called upon to give his willingness/option for being absorbed in the merged Corporation, in light of the decision taken by the Government to merge the Himachal Pradesh Minorities, Finance and Development Corporation and Himachal Pradesh Mahila Vikas Nigam with Himachal Backward Class Finance and Development Corporation. The petitioner opted for the same and was absorbed in respondent No.2 w.e.f. 01.04.2000 in terms of Annexure P-4. The petitioner served with respondent No.2 till he retired on 30.04.2019 3 2026:HHC:9177-DB from the post of Field Assistant. 3. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-6, the petitioner wrote to the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, mentioning therein that as he had served for 29 years, firstly with HRTC and thereafter, with respondent No.2, therefore, both the Corporation be directed to grant pension as well as other facilities to him. 4. In response thereto, respondent No.1/ Corporation vide Annexure P-7, intimated the Authority that as the petitioner had served the Corporation only for a period of 7 years,2 months and 24 days and thereafter, he remained posted with respondent No.2 till his superannuation, therefore, the Corporation was not liable to pay pension etc. in his favour. 5. Respondent No.2 took the stand that there was no provision with respondent No.2 for payment of pension and medical facility and the petitioner stood paid Rs.9,01,627/-on account of gratuity and Rs.5,20,940/- on account of leave encashment, i.e. total amount of Rs.14,22,567/-, through Life Insurance Corporation as per the policy adopted by respondent No.2. 6. Feeling aggrieved by denial of pension by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are not justified in denying pension to the petitioner, for the reason that as the petitioner had collectively served both the 4 2026:HHC:9177-DB Corporations for more than 20 years, he was entitled to be paid pension as per rules by considering entire service rendered by him with the Corporations on pro rata basis. He submitted that the denial thereof by the Authorities is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the respondents be directed to grant pension and other ancillary benefits to him, as prayed for in the petition, along with interest from the due date. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respective Corporations reiterated the stand, as has been taken by the said respondents in the reply. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 10. Record demonstrates that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Conductor by respondent No.1 on 16.08.1989 and his services were regularized on 07.09.1989. He went on deputation basis to respondent No.2/Corporation w.e.f. 02.12.1996 and continued to serve said Corporation on deputation basis till his services were absorbed vide Annexure P-4, dated 30.01.2009 w.e.f. 11.04.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from the service of respondent No.2 on 30.11.2019. 11. Now, the stand of respondent No.2 in the present case is that there is no provision for payment of pension to the employees and whatever was due to the petitioner, stands released in his 5 2026:HHC:9177-DB favour, which is also evident from Annexure P-8. 12. During the course of arguments of this case, it could not be disputed by the petitioner that he indeed stood paid the amount by respondent No.2, as reflected in Annexure P-8 and that job in respondent No.2 was not pensionable. In the light of the fact that the job with respondent No.2 was not a pensionary job, no mandamus can be issued to respondent No.2 to grant pension to the petitioner, as is being demanded by him. 13. Now, coming to respondent No.1, Annexure P-7 demonstrates that in terms thereof, as well as in terms of the reply filed by respondent No.1, as the petitioner served the respondent No.1/Corporation only for 7 years, 2 months and 24 days, therefore, he was not entitled to the pensionary benefits. 14. In terms of the record, the services of the petitioner were regularized by respondent No.1 as a Conductor on 07.09.1989 and he continued to be an employee of the respondent No.1-Corporation till his services were absorbed in respondent No.2-Corporation in terms of Annexure P-7, dated 31.01.2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2000. 15. Now, as from 07.09.1989, till his services were absorbed by respondent No.2-Corporation, w.e.f. 01.04.2000, the petitioner continued to be an employee of HRTC, though he was serving respondent No.2-Corporation since December, 1996 on deputation basis. As from 07.09.1989, the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of service as a Conductor with respondent No.1. 6 2026:HHC:9177-DB 16. That being the case, respondent No1 is not justified in saying that the petitioner had only put in 7 years service with the respondent-Corporation. In fact, the petitioner had put in more than 10 years of service with the said Corporation and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for receipt of pension from respondent No.1- Corporation for the period, he served the said Corporation on regular basis, i.e. from 07.09.1989 upto the date of his abortion with respondent No.2, i.e. 01.04.2000. 17. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by rejecting the claim of the petitioner qua respondent No.2, but by upholding his claim qua receipt of pension only against respondent No.1, with direction to respondent No.1 to grant pension to the petitioner for the service rendered by him w.e.f. 07.09.1989 upto 01.04.2000. In light of the fact that legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner in this regard before an appropriate Court of law was by way of filing this petition only, which has been filed in the month of March, 2021, it is ordered that the pension shall be paid by the respondent- Corporation to the petitioner prospectively as from the date of filing of the petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 30, 2026 (Rishi)