2026:HHC:18352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 284 of 2026 Date of decision: 18.05.2026. Surinder Kumar ...Appellant. Versus HRTC & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral): The present appeal has been filed by the employee against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.03.2026, in CWP No. 4639 of 2021, titled as, Surinder Kumar vs. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, on the ground that the relief granted for counting of period w.e.f. 07.09.1989 upto 01.04.2000 for the purpose of pension with respondent No.1-Corporation should have been till 31.01.2009 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- (Annexure P-4), when the order of approving his absorption of the services was taken by respondent No.2-Corporation. 2. The learned Single Judge while granting the relief, has restricted it upto 01.04.2000. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge to grant the relief of the said period as such to the petitioner w.e.f. 07.09.1989 to 01.04.2000 was on the plea that the services of the appellant-employee had been placed on deputation on 28.11.1996 but he continued to remain as such to be an employee of respondent No.1 till 31.01.2009, which is a non-pensionable establishment. It is in such circumstances, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Counsel for the appellant-employee has submitted that though the option of the employee was taken as such on 30.9.2000 (Annexure P-3) but the effect was given later on 31.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) wrongly w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and, therefore, for the intervening period w.e.f. 1.4.2000 to 31.1.2009, his services should also be counted with respondent No.1. -3- 4. We are not in a position to agree with the arguments raised as such. Apparently, the arguments have been raised on the basis of the pleadings made in the writ petition that the petitioner regularly remained subscribing to GPF upto February, 2011 through respondent No.1-Corporation, which fact was admitted by respondent No.2 in paragraph-6 of the written statement filed to the writ petition. 5. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that apparently the deputation was for a period of one year initially, which is clear from the order dated 28.11.1996 (Annexure P-2) and the terms and conditions attached therewith have also been placed on record. The specific stand of respondent No.1 was that the contribution of GPF was required to be deposited by respondent No.2, who had failed to deposit the same with respondent No.1. The services of the petitioner had been absorbed by respondent No.2 at the instance and express consent of the petitioner and if the petitioner was aggrieved by such absorption, he could have challenged the same before the competent -4- authority. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to come up with such plea after a gap of 21 years, as apparently, the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, after the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.04.2019. In such circumstances, the plea of respondent No.1 was that the petitioner has rendered only 07 years, 02 months and 24 days service with respondent No.1 and did not have the required service criteria for grant of pension. 6. From the perusal of reply of respondent No.2, it is clear that the absorption was done as per terms and conditions prescribed by the Government of H.P. vide order dated 31.1.2009, which would go on to show that apparently when the petitioner had been absorbed in the service as clerk, he had got the benefit of promotion in the office of respondent No.2 within five days, on 05.02.2009, as he was promoted to the post of Field Assistant, which is clear from Annexure R-3. Another objection which has been raised by respondent No.1 is that if the petitioner was not satisfied with his absorption, he should have challenged his absorption and would not have been -5- promoted as Field Assistant and after promotion, it is deemed that he has accepted the absorption. Having accepted the promotion by the petitioner and further continued serving respondent No.2 for a period of ten years and then retired on 30.4.2019, apparently after the retirement, he raised the demand notice on 17.7.2020 (P- 6). 7. Perusal of reply to the said notice dated 27.8.2020 (P-7) would go on to show that the final payment of GPF to the tune of Rs. 3,46,797/-, was given to the petitioner by the HRTC on 29.09.2015 and his account was closed. Thereafter he was granted gratuity and leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 14,22,367/- on 13.05.2019, on the basis of service rendered by him for 29 years, 7 months and 24 days. As per the pleadings, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner were withdrawn on his request before the Labour Commissioner and thereafter, he served a legal notice dated 6.1.2021 (P-10) and thereafter, the petitioner had filed the writ petition. -6- 8. In the above facts and circumstances, having accepted the absorption order on 31.01.2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and thereafter having gained a promotion and having served till 2019 with respondent No.2 Corporation for a period of ten years, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner as such that the intervening period w.e.f. 1.4.2021 to 31.1.2009 should also be treated as service with the HRTC for the purpose of pension. The learned Single Judge has also rightly granted the benefit of service from 07.09.1989 till 01.04.2000 for the purpose of pension in favour of the appellant to be paid prospectively only from the date of filing of the writ petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances from the year 2021. Therefore, keeping in view the conduct of the appellant as such, we are of the considered opinion that he is bound by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence, having accepted the terms of absorption order for ten years. Therefore, we find no plausible reason to take a different view, as taken by the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the fact that the -7- extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is totally discretionary. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 18th May, 2026 (kck)