Hrtc Vs Ashok Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hrtc Vs Ashok Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 50 days in filing the appeal condoned (CMP(M) No.458 of 2026 disposed off); Caveat No.704 of 2026 discharged; LPA No.222 of 2026 admitted with notice issued and service waived by counsel for the respondent; interim position recorded that the appellant-Corporation would not change the nomenclature of the work undertaken by the employee; merits left open, the matter requiring consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the issue of change of designation from the post of Conductor to the post of Clerk is governed by the earlier decisions in the Jai Singh / Yadvinder Kumar line, which is presently under consideration in SLP(C) Diary No(s). 10595 of 2026 pursuant to the stay granted by the Apex Court on 18.03.2026. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned, keeping in view the averments made in application CMP(M) No.458 of 2026, duly supported by the affidavit of the official.

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the admitted pleadings in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the written statement filed by the appellant-Corporation, whereby the employee after 30.10.2011 had been deployed to perform duties in office by the Regional Manager, Reckong Peo and was not doing the work of a Conductor, the appellant-Corporation, on account of the interim order passed, would not change the nomenclature of the work being undertaken by the employee.ratio¶16
LPA No.222 of 2026 is admitted; notice was issued and service thereof waived by counsel for the respondent. The merits were not decided, the court recording that the matter requires consideration.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order dated 22.04.2026 in LPA No.222 of 2026, Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar (with CMP(M) No.458 of 2026 and Caveat No.704 of 2026): delay of 50 days in filing the appeal condoned and the application disposed off; caveat discharged; appeal admitted with notice, service waived by counsel for the respondent (Mr. Nishant Khidtta). Counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue of change of designation from the post of Conductor to the post of Clerk was also subject matter of the decision in CWP No.1088 of 2020 (Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Yadvinder Kumar, decided 14.05.2025), which relied on the view taken in CWP No.3093/2009-F (Jai Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation), upheld in LPA No.134 of 2012 (decided 03.05.2012); the said judgment is now under consideration in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10595 of 2026, on which the Apex Court granted stay on 18.03.2026. Recording the admitted pleadings in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the written statement that after 30.10.2011 the employee had been deployed to perform office duties by the Regional Manager, Reckong Peo and was not doing Conductor work despite working as Clerk, Senior Assistant and Accountant since 2012, the court held that the appellant-Corporation, on account of the interim order passed, would not change the nomenclature of the work undertaken by him. The merits were expressly left open: the matter requires consideration. Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar.

Item No. (S-4)

22.04.2026

CMP(M) No.458 of 2026

Present : Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, for the respondent.

Caveat No.704 of 2026

Caveat stands discharged.

CMP(M) No.458 of 2026

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed off accordingly.

LPA No.222 of 2026

3. Inter alia submits that the issue for change of designation from the post of Conductor to the post of Clerk was also subject matter of decision in CWP No.1088 of 2020, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Yadvinder Kumar, decided on 14.05.2025 and the view taken in CWP No.3093/2009-F, titled Jai Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation which was upheld in LPA No.134 of 2012, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Jai Singh, decided on 03.05.2012 had been relied upon.

4. It is submitted that the said judgment is now subject matter of consideration in Special Leave Petition

(Civil) Diary No(s). 10595 of 2026 and stay was granted by the Apex Court on 18.03.2026.

5. Issue Notice. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

6. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that since the employee has been working and discharging his duties as Clerk, Senior Assistant and Accountant etc., since the year 2012 hence he should not be divested of the said charge on account of the stay of the judgment. Keeping in view the admitted pleadings in paragraph 5 to 7 of the written statement filed by the appellant-Corporation the employee as such after 30.10.2011 had been deployed to perform duties in office by the Regional Manager, Reckong Peo therefore he was not doing the work of a Conductor. Therefore, the appellant-Corporation on account of the interim order passed now would not change the nomenclature of the work which is being undertaken by the employee. The matter requires consideration.

7. Admit.

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

22^nd April, 2026 (Munish Thakur)