In a public interest matter involving retiral benefits, the court did not decide merits but permitted the petitioner to submit detailed particulars regarding arrears and interest, directing the respondent to decide within six weeks.
Permission granted to file a detailed representation within three weeks; respondent directed to decide within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.771 of 2024 Decided on: 26th February, 2024 __________________________________________________________ Rajinder Pal ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) and others ……Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned Standing
Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order intended to be passed herein.
3. The petitioner, a retiree, having retired from the post of Chief-Inspector, from HRTC, on 31.03.2020, has filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
release/make actual payment of all remaining retiral benefits of the petitioner alongw with 9% interest forthwith, for delay on the part of respondent corporation and loss of accretion of capital, from due date till actual payment is made, being a squarely covered matter with CWP No.3050/2014, titled as Nek Ram vs. State of H.P. & others and CWP No.605/2019 titled as Hukam Chand v/s HRTC. Further respondents may also be directed to pay interest on the all delayed payments from the due date. Further the respondents may kindly be directed to calculated the DCRG of the petitioner in consonance with the prevailing Dearness Allowances & Arrears alongwith interest at all delayed payments from the due date.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules) dated 03.01.2022, giving revised pay scales to the State Government Employees and the Office Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 giving revised pension, revised gratuity, revised leave encashment and revised commuted pension for the State Government Employees, who retired/died on or after 01.01.2016. Notifications were adopted and applied by the Respondent-Corporation, by issuing Office Memorandum,
the Office Memorandum on 01.08.2022, giving the revised pay and revised retiral benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to the employees of the Corporation, alike the petitioner and in this background, the petitioner is claiming benefits of (i) the arrears of revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.03.2020; and (ii) the revised retiral benefits i.e. Revised Pension, Revised Gratuity, Revised Leave Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension alongwith interest thereon.
5. Perusal of the pleadings reveals that the instant petition is vague and does not disclose the material particulars, as to the nature and extent of retiral benefits due and released; and if not, the nomenclature of retiral benefits (including the factum as to whether option required for revised commuted pension survives or not, etc.) which are yet to be released; and the extent of interest admissible on nonrelease and/or belated release of these retiral benefits and extent of interest admissible, on the basis of relevant rules/ law. These material aspects are missing in the instant case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2108 of
2023 , titled as Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others , decided on 31.05.2023, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondent to release the revised pay and all retiral benefits along with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till realization. So far as Revised Leave Encashment is concerned, the learned counsel relies upon judgment in CWP No.7359 of 2021 , titled as Amita Gupta Versus State of H.P. & ors. , decided on 01.12.2022, which stands implemented.
7. Per contra, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents states that the Respondent-Corporation has filed a review petition, seeking review of the judgment passed in case of Bhagat Ram ( supra ).
8. Faced with this situation, at this stage, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to make a representation, giving all detailsparticulars, to the authorities for ventilating claim(s) of the petitioner. The request being innocuous, is not opposed by Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned opposing counsel also.
9. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, and as per the request so made, this
Court permits the petitioner to make a representation to Respondent No.1-Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, giving all details material-particulars, within three weeks from today; with further directions to aforesaid respondent-authority to decide the same in the light of existing norms, rules and law, including the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhagat Ram and Amita Gupta ( supra ), within six weeks thereafter.
10. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions of facts and law are left open.
In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge
February 26, 2024 (himani)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a representation with detailed particulars regarding retiral benefits and interest.
Whether the respondent authority should decide the claim based on existing norms and the judgment in Bhagat Ram.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nek Ram vs. State of H.P. & othersReferred¶12
CWP No.3050/2014, titled as Nek Ram vs. State of H.P. & others
Hukam Chand vs HRTCReferred¶12
CWP No.605/2019, titled as Hukam Chand v/s HRTC
Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & othersReferred¶20
CWP No.2108 of 2023, titled as Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others
Amita Gupta Versus State of H.P. & ors.Referred¶21
CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta Versus State of H.P. & ors.
Rajinder Pal
Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Ranjan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
