Parveen Kumar Vs Hrtc and Anr.

(ii) That the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving him regular status w.e.f. the date of giving him employment on contract basis i.e. w.e.f. 29.03.2013.

¶16

(iii) That the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits with Interest @ 12% per annum in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶17

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioner, who was serving the respondentCorporation as a Conductor on regular basis, died in an unfortunate

¶18

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

¶19

2

¶20

2026:HHC:24136

¶21

accident on 15.09.1996 while on duty. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. After he attained the age of majority, the petitioner applied for appointment under the “kith and kin” policy of the respondents on 07.04.2008. The petitioner was offered appointment on 29.03.2013, on contract basis as a Conductor and his services were regularized subsequently on 05.07.2017. The petitioner is seeking quashing of Annexure P-8, office order dated 24.05.2022, in terms whereof, his representation to treat him as appointed on regular basis since the initial date of appointment has been rejected by the Authority. He is further praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent-Corporation to confer upon him the status of a regular employee from the date of his initial engagement on contract basis.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that father of the petitioner lost his life on 15.09.1996, while on duty. Therefore, obviously, his case for appointment on compassionate basis was to be processed on the basis of the policy which was in vogue when the father of the petitioner died. He submitted that the policy in vogue at the relevant time did not envisage the offer of appointment under the “kith and kin” policy on contract basis. He further submitted that in fact, this issue is no more res integra as this Court in CWP No.2334 of 2021, titled as Shri Mohit Sharma vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, decided on 14.12.2021, has

¶23

3

¶24

2026:HHC:24136

¶25

been pleased to hold that in such like circumstance, the case of an applicant has to be considered in accordance with the policy existing as on the date when the cause of action accrued. He further submitted that these findings stood returned by this Court in the above judgment in light of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Lekh Ram, decided on 08.02.2019.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondentCorporation submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner had applied for appointment under the kith and kin policy in the year 2008 and at that time, the policy in vogue provided for appointment on contract basis and as the petitioner was offered appointment on contract basis, he is not entitled for regular employment. He submitted that the judgment being relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner because herein the case of the petitioner has been rightly considered and rejected by the authority in terms of the policy, which was in vogue at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner.

¶27

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith as also the judgments being relied upon by the petitioner.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the death of the father of the

¶29

4

¶30

2026:HHC:24136

¶31

petitioner took place on 15.09.1996 in an accident while on duty. It is also not in dispute that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and after he had attained the age of majority, he approached the respondent-Corporation for appointment under the kith and kin policy in the year 2008. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was offered appointment under kith and kin policy, on contract basis in the year 2013 and thereafter, his services were regularized on 05.04.2017. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6208 of 2020, titled as Praveen Kumar vs. HRTC and another, praying for similar reliefs and therein his case was ordered to be treated as representation, which has resulted in the passing of the impugned office order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-8).

¶32

This Court in CWP No. 2334 of 2021, titled as Mohit Sharma vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation was dealing with similar issue. Therein the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 25.10.2000 and the petitioner therein was also minor at the time of death of his father. On attaining the age of majority, he applied for appointment under the kith and kin policy and the petitioner therein was appointed on contract basis on 10.04.2007. His services were regularized thereafter on 23.08.2014. The petitioner approached this Court praying for issuance of a direction

¶33

5

¶34

2026:HHC:24136

¶35

to the authorities for his regularization from the initial date of his engagement on contract basis. Said writ petition was allowed by this Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeals No. 1557-1564 of 2019 , titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Lekh Ram . Relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court in Mohit Sharma’s case is being quoted herein below:-

¶36

“5. Few facts which are not in dispute are as under:The father of the petitioner died in harness on 25.10.2000. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra) was pleased to uphold the judgment passed by this Court in which it was held by this Court that the case of the petitioner therein had to be considered in accordance with the policy in existence on the date when father of Sh. Lekh Ram retired from service. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as it was not in dispute that the policy which was in existence did not stipulate making of such appointment on contract basis, therefore, Lekh Ram was eligible for appointment i.e. compassionate appointment on regular basis from the initial date of appointment.

¶37

6. In the present case as already mentioned above,

¶38

6

¶39

2026:HHC:24136

¶40

the father of the petitioner died on 25.10.2000. Admittedly, the policy which was enforced at the relevant time did not envisage appointment on compassionate basis on contract. The policy in issue as is borne out from the record of the case with regard to appointment of kith and kin policy on compassionate basis was amended by the Corporation on 12.12.2003 and this amendment was made effective w.e.f. 02.08.2006. In the present case, the petitioner had attained the majority before 02.08.2006, as his date of birth 16.07.1988.

¶41

7. During the course of the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an office order dated 28.07.2021, issued by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to the Divisional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla/ Hamirpur/Mandi/Dharamshala on the subject regarding regularization of Class-III (employees) appointed under kith and kin policy and similar situated with Lekh Ram case. The relevant extract of this communication reads as under:-

¶42

A perusal of this communication demonstrates

¶43

7

¶44

2026:HHC:24136

¶45

that the respondent-Corporation has now taken a policy decision to regularize the services of all employees who were appointed under kith and kin policy on contract basis from the date of initial appointment provided the case of the death of the parents happened before 03.08.2006 i.e. prior to adoption of contractual policy notified by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh in 2003 and also the representationists being not a minor before 03.08.2006.

¶46

8. The petitioner herein fulfills both these parameters. His father died in harness before 03.08.2006 and he was not minor as on 03.08.2006. In this background, the rejection of the case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly ordered to be quashed for the reason that the petitioner cannot be denied regularization from the initial date of his appointment on the hyper technical ground that his case was received by the office for employment under kith and kin policy on 05.02.2007. The touch stone is the date of death of the father of the petitioner and also as to whether or not as on 03.08.2006, he was a minor.

¶47

8

¶48

2026:HHC:24136

¶49

9. Accordingly, in view of the discussions held hereinafter, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the initial date of his appointment on contract basis. The above period of service shall also be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and for terminal benefits as and when they fall due in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra). Arrears of salary shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.”

¶50

This Court is of the considered view that in light of the judgment passed by this Court in Mohit Sharma’s case (supra), the petitioner herein is also entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. As observed hereinabove also, the facts of this case are akin to those in Mohit Sharma’s case. In fact, whereas in Mohit Sharma’s case, father of the petitioner therein had died in the year 2000, herein the father of the petitioner died in the year 1996. It is evident from para7 of the judgment passed in Mohit Sharma’s case, that the Managing Director had written to all the Divisional Managers of various Divisions on the subject regarding regularization of Class-III

¶51

9

¶52

2026:HHC:24136

¶53

(employees) appointed under the kith and kin policy and similarly situated as Lekh Ram, wherein it was mentioned that the respondent-Corporation had taken a policy decision to regularize the services of all employees who were appointed under the kith and kin policy on contract basis from the date of initial appointment provided the date of death of the parent of the applicant happened before 03.08.2006, i.e. prior to the adoption of the contractual policy notified by the State Government and also the representationists being not a minor before 03.08.2006.

¶54

In the present case, as the death of the parent of the petitioner happened before 03.08.2006, therefore, the petitioner otherwise also is entitled for regularization from the initial date of his appointment on contract basis in terms of this communication also. In fact, when the representation of the petitioner was dismissed by the Authority on 24.05.2022, the communication issued by the Managing Director dated 28.07.2021 was already in existence, therefore also, there was no occasion for the Authority to have had rejected the representation of the petitioner and thus, rejection thereof by the authority is also bad in law.

¶55

Therefore, in light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and Annexure P-8 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the initial date of engagement on contract basis, i.e. w.e.f.

¶56

10

¶57

2026:HHC:24136

¶58

29.03.2013. The above period of service shall also be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and for terminal benefits as and when they fall due in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra). Arrears of salary shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶59

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶60

June 23, 2026 ( narender )

Parveen Kumar v. Hrtc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar v. Hrtc and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs Hp Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya

Alka Bhalaik Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mamta Rani Vs State of Hp and Another

Neel Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others