Bal Krishan Vs the Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bal Krishan Vs the Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without going into merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the pending representation dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order while taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Vikram Singh's case (CWPOA No.2343 of 2020); liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to regularize the petitioner's services after completion of one year with all consequential benefits (seniority, pay fixation, arrears) in view of the R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of appointment. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a detailed speaking order.

Key takeaways

In deciding the representation, the authority shall take note of the Division Bench judgment in Vikram Singh's case (supra), wherein the issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.ratio¶19
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.3761 of 2025, decided 19.03.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J.) seeking regularization after one year of service with consequential benefits and parity with the petitioners in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation alongwith connected matters, Division Bench judgment dated 09.11.2023). Before reply could be filed, petitioner's counsel confined the prayer to a direction to decide the pending representation dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) in light of the Vikram Singh judgment. The High Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order, taking note of the Vikram Singh judgment wherein the same issue already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3761 of 2025

Date of Decision: 19.03.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Bal Krishan …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, proxy counsel vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Lalita Sharma, proxy counsel vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main reliefs:-

“ (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner after completion of one year with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc. in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments;

(ii). That petitioner may kindly be granted same treatment which has given to petitioners of CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 alongwith all consequential benefits.”

Before the reply could be received on behalf of the

respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on

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

2

instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner.

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Ms. Lalita Sharma, learned proxy counsel, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order

3

thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

March 19,2025 (shankar)