Disposed¶17

Kapil Rana and Ors. v. Hrtc

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2026EX.P./966/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kapil Rana v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation | Ex. Pet. No. 966 of 2026 | High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla | decision 03.07.2026 | execution petition disposed with pending applications | regularization of conductor's services from back date | analogy of Lekh Ram vs. HRTC | payment Rs.10,36,685/- by two cheques (letter dated 02.06.2026) | Rs. 1,78,188/- deducted as commission | total payment Rs. 12,14,873/- | deduction open to be challenged in accordance with law | G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice; Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of along with pending applications, if any; no further relief adjudicated, the petitioner being left free to challenge the commission deduction in accordance with law. ¶17

Kapil Rana and Ors. Vs Hrtc — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:26574

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

Ex. Pet. No. 966 of 2026

¶4

Date of decision: 03.07.2026

¶5

Kapil Rana …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation …Respondent

¶6

Co ram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has placed on record letter dated 02.06.2026, whereby a sum of Rs.10,36,685/- has been paid by two separate cheques, the details of which are given in the said letter, on account of the regularization of the petitioner’s services as conductor from the back date as per the analogy of Lekh Ram vs. HRTC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted while placing on record letters dated 08.05.2026 and 14.05.2026 that a sum of Rs. 1,78,188/- has

¶13

¶14

2026:HHC:26574

¶15

been deducted as commission and the total payment was of Rs. 12,14,873/-.

¶16

Since we are only concerned with the execution of the order, which has been sought for, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said deduction, in accordance with law.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of so also pending applications, if any.

¶18

(G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶19

3^rd July, 2026 (sanjeev)

¶20

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

Kapil Rana and Ors. v. Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Rana and Ors. v. Hrtc

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

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Desh Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

court on its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

Usha Kunwar and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Reserve Bank of India

Manohar Lal Vs Hrtc and Anr.