Chander Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16119 of 2025 along with CWP Nos.16121, 16123, 16125, 16127, 16129, 16131 and 16133 of 2025

Date of Decision: 15.10.2025

__________________________ 1. CWP No.16119 of 2025 Dila Ram HRTC and Others	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner ….Respondents
__________________________ 2. CWP No.16121 of 2025 Chander Singh	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner
HRTC and Others		….Respondents
__________________________ 3. CWP No.16123 of 2025 Pawan Kumar HRTC and Others	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner ….Respondents
__________________________ 4. CWP No.16125 of 2025 Shiv Dutt	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner
HRTC and Others		….Respondents
__________________________ 5. CWP No.16127 of 2025 Brij Lal	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner
HRTC and Others		….Respondents
__________________________ 6. CWP No.16129 of 2025 Chaman Lal HRTC and Others	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner ….Respondents
__________________________ 7. CWP No.16131 of 2025 Hari Singh	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner
HRTC and Others		….Respondents
__________________________ 8. CWP No.16133 of 2025 Subhash Chander Paul	______________ Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner
HRTC and Others __________________________	______________	….Respondents ____________________

¶5

2

¶6

Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Raman Jamalta, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vashishat, Mr. Rahul Thakur, Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocates, in respective petitions.

¶9

____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶10

Petitioner(s) herein, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to respondents to implement the decision contained in communication dated 22.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), issued under the signatures of Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, whereby Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, while apprising all quarters concerned that instructions contained in H.P. State Government Notification No.Fin(Pen)A(3)-1/2021 dated 08.09.2022, regarding revision of pension/family pension at 50% and 30% of the levels of pay matrix are adopted in HRTC in respect of pensioners/family pensioners of the HRTC w.e.f. 01.01.2016, called upon them to pass appropriate orders with regard to pay fixation and revision of pension, in accordance with afore Notification with further direction to release the revised pension/family pension from the month of July 2023 onwards after completing all codal formalities.

¶11

Since despite there being aforesaid decision taken by the Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, needful has not been done with regard to release of arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension,

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

3

¶14

petitioner(s) have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:

¶15

(a) to implement their own orders dated 22.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) consequently revising petitioner’s pension at 50% of the levels of the Pay Matrix w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and release entire arrears w.e.f. 01.07.2023 onwards along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶16

Having regard to the nature of prayer, coupled with the fact that claim, otherwise put forth in the petition at hand stands admitted by the respondents, as is evident from the communication dated 22.07.2023 (Annexure P-1), this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by respective counsel, as detailed hereinabove.

¶17

Learned counsel representing the respondents fairly admit that pursuant to decision taken by Board of Director, whereby it was decided to adopt the instructions contained in H.P. State Government Notification dated 08.09.2022, regarding revision of pension/family pension at the rate of 50% and 30% of the levels of the pay matrix, petitioner(s) herein are entitled to arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension, but on account of financial crunch, same could not be released well within time. They further state that respondent-Corporation shall release the arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension w.e.f. July 2023 onwards within a period of 12 weeks and thereafter recurring amount, on account of pension/family pension shall be paid in the month of November, 2025.

¶18

In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing the respondents, coupled with the fact that amount, otherwise

¶19

4

¶20

sought to be released is admitted by respondents, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondent-Corporation to release arrears on account of revision of pension/family pension for a period starting from July 2023, within a period of 12 weeks and thereafter, petitioner shall continue to receive monthly pension, as per their entitlement, failing which, petitioner(s) herein would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date, amount ordered to be paid fell due. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

The present petition(s) are disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶22

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Chander Singh v. Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Singh v. Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khem Singh Vs the State of Hp and Another

Hing Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Mehru Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Bhag Chand Vs Hpsebl and Anr.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Hp and Another