Dismissed¶28

Hrtc and Others v. Sohan Lal Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC12 May 2026LPA/247/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral benefits; pension dues; interest on delayed payment of retiral dues; 9% per annum penal interest beyond six months; bounden duty of the State to pay retiral dues; HRTC; revised pay scale; Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022; Bhagat Ram v. HRTC; Roshan Lal Khajuria; LPA dismissed; Himachal Pradesh High Court; G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ; Bipin Chander Negi, J; retirement on 31.05.2023.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the learned Single Judge's directions for payment of remaining retiral benefits with interest stand undisturbed. ¶28

Hrtc and Others Vs Sohan Lal Sharma — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the learned Single Judge's directions for payment of remaining retiral benefits with interest stand undisturbed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.09.2025 in CWP No.570 of 2024, directing payment of remaining retiral benefits with interest, should be entertained, in view of the appellants' contention that the relief was founded on Bhagat Ram, whose order was recalled in Roshan Lal Khajuria. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court was not convinced with the appellants' argument: the learned Single Judge, being well-aware that the issue in Roshan Lal Khajuria's case (decided 22.05.2025) was still pending before the Coordinate Bench, deliberately did not grant the full relief and granted only a limited relief.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

No direction regarding the benefit of the revised pay scale was made by the learned Single Judge, as it is not disputed that the employee had retired on 31.05.2023 and was not granted all the relief claimed.

¶24

Key takeaways

There was no plausible reason to entertain the appeal, since it is the bounden duty of the State to pay the retiral dues.ratio¶25
The Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Division Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin Chander Negi, J) dismissed HRTC's Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No.247 of 2026) against the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.09.2025 in CWP No.570 of 2024, which directed payment of the remaining retiral benefits to the retiree (who superannuated on 31.05.2023) with the actual rate of interest as per applicable rules within six months, failing which interest at 9% per annum till actual payment. Held: the learned Single Judge, being well-aware that the issue arising from Bhagat Ram (CWP No.2018 of 2023, decided 31.05.2023) — whose order was recalled in LPA No.109 of 2024 (State of HP v. Roshan Lal Khajuria, decided 22.05.2025) — was still pending before a Coordinate Bench, had deliberately granted only a limited relief and made no direction on the revised pay scale benefit under the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022; it is the bounden duty of the State to pay retiral dues. Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.247 of 2026 Decided on : 12.05.2026

¶3

HRTC and Ors. ...Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

Sohan Lal Sharma …Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the appellant(s) : Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

¶11

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the innocuous order passed by the learned Single Judge on 08.09.2025, in CWP No.570 of 2024, titled Sohan Lal

¶13

Sharma, Vs. HRTC and Ors.

¶14

The directions issued, as such, are to pay the amount of the remaining retiral benefits to the petitioner with actual rate of interest, as per applicable rules, till the date of actual payment, i.e., within a period of six months. The penal clause whereby interest is to be paid @ 9% would arise, if in case retiral benefits are not paid within six months.

¶15

The counsel for the appellants/Corporation has

¶16

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

¶17

-2-

¶18

tried to convince us that the relief in the writ petition was based upon the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No.2018 of 2023, titled Bhagat Ram Vs. HRTC and Others , decided on 31.05.2023 and submitted that the prayer, as such, was also for the benefits of the revised pay scale in Bhagat Ram case (supra) from 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2022, as per the revised pay rule of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022. It is thus contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/Corporation in LPA No.109 of 2024, titled State of HP and Anr. Vs. Roshan Lal Khajuria a/w connected matters , decided on 22.05.2025, that while taking note, the order in Bhagat Ram’s case was recalled and the matter is still pending, similarly situated appeals were allowed and therefore, consideration has been sought.

¶19

We are not convinced with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Single Judge passed the order on 08.09.2025, being well-aware that in Roshan Lal Khajuria’s case, which was decided on 22.05.2025 (Annexure A-1), the issue was still pending consideration before the Coordinate Bench and therefore, the learned Single Judge did not grant the relief and only granted a limited relief

¶20

-3-

¶21

in the following terms:-

¶22

“6. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount of remaining retiral benefits to the petitioner 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.”

¶23

We have also gone through the written statement,

¶24

as such, filed by the appellants, whereby specific stand was taken that all the retiral dues @ pre-revision stands already paid to the petitioner and appropriate decision will be taken by the Corporation in what manner the arrears on account of revision of pay and pension are to be paid and that the employee was at that stage not entitled to get the relief as was being claimed. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge did not pass any direction regarding the benefit of the revised pay scale, as it is not disputed that the employee had retired on 31.05.2023 and has not been granted all of the relief, which was claimed.

¶25