Santokh Singh Vs the Hrtc and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP Nos. 3466 & 3470/2025 Decided on: 13.03.2025

1. CWP No. 3466 of 2025 Santokh Singh …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. .…Respondents ______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 3470 of 2025 Om Parkash …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. .…Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram

¶4

Ms Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioners: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate.

¶7

For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶9

Notice. Mr.Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, accepts

¶10

service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the matters.

¶11

2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners,

¶12

who had retired from the service of the respondents–Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC), with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to pay amount of gratuity, GPF and leave encashment alongwith interest for the delay on part of the respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

2

¶15

3 . Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014 , titled Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.07.2014 and also on a subsequent order of this Court dated 25.08.2021, passed in CWP No. 4377 of 2021, titled Sh. Subhash Chand versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla and others alongwith connected matters, in which, the respondents were directed to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioners within a period of six months. In case, the required retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioners within the aforesaid period of six months, then in addition to the due statutory benefits, the petitioners shall also be paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum beyond the period of six months till the date of actual payment.

¶16

4 . In another subsequent order of this Court passed in CWP No. 6034 of 2021 , titled Ram Lal versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another and the connected matter, decided on 23.11.2021, the respondents were directed to make payment of gratuity to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of passing the order. In the event of non-payment of due amount, the petitioners were held entitled to differential amount of interest between the amount of interest statutorily payable to the petitioners as per the Payment of Gratuity

¶17

3

¶18

Act and the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond six months.

¶19

5 . While disposing of Review Petition No.110 of 2021 on 25.11.2021, preferred against the order dated 09.11.2021 passed in CWP No.6928 of 2021, in which, the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2021 passed in CWP No.4377 of 2021 was relied upon, this Court has clarified the aforesaid order in the terms that the respondent-Corporation shall be liable to pay entire retiral dues of the petitioner, including amount of Gratuity and Leave Encashment and interest amount of Commute Pension alongwith prescribed rate of interest, within a period of six months from the due date till the actual payment is made.

¶20

6 . In view of above, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay amount of gratuity, GPF and leave encashment with actual rate of interest as per applicable rules, till the time of actual payment, which shall be paid to them within a period of six months from today. The due amount of payment, if delayed beyond six months, shall be paid with interest to the rate of 9% per annum till the date of its actual payment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶22

(R. atal)

¶23

13^th March, 2025

Santokh Singh v. the Hrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santokh Singh v. the Hrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National High Way Authority of India Vs Vinod Kumar and Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Naveen Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sushma Devi Vs State of Hp and Another

Brijesh Kumar and Others Vs Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Ltd.

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another