Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6421 (HP)

HRTC v. ASHOK KUMAR

CMP.M/458/2026 · 2026-04-22

Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar. Item No. (S-4) CMP(M) No.458 of 2026 22.04.2026 Present: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, for the respondent. Caveat No.704 of 2026 Caveat stands discharged. CMP(M) No.458 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed off accordingly. LPA No.222 of 2026 3. Inter alia submits that the issue for change of designation from the post of Conductor to the post of Clerk was also subject matter of decision in CWP No.1088 of 2020, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Yadvinder Kumar, decided on 14.05.2025 and the view taken in CWP No.3093/2009-F, titled Jai Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation which was upheld in LPA No.134 of 2012, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Jai Singh, decided on 03.05.2012 had been relied upon. 4. It is submitted that the said judgment is now subject matter of consideration in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10595 of 2026 and stay was granted by the Apex Court on 18.03.2026. 5. Issue Notice. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. 6. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that since the employee has been working and discharging his duties as Clerk, Senior Assistant and Accountant etc., since the year 2012 hence he should not be divested of the said charge on account of the stay of the judgment. Keeping in view the admitted pleadings in paragraph 5 to 7 of the written statement filed by the appellant-Corporation the employee as such after 30.10.2011 had been deployed to perform duties in office by the Regional Manager, Reckong Peo therefore he was not doing the work of a Conductor. Therefore, the appellant-Corporation on account of the interim order passed now would not change the nomenclature of the work which is being undertaken by the employee. The matter requires consideration. 7. Admit. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 22nd April, 2026 (Munish Thakur)