Gopal Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Judgment

2. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. Respondents

2. CWP No. 7405/2011-T Arunjeet Singh son of Shri Parmeshwari Dass, Conductor, ISBT, Delhi -110006 Petitioner Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla.

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. CWP No. 7440/2011

3. Jai Ram son of Shri Ram Karan, Conductor, ISBT, Delhi -110006 Petitioner Respondents Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla.

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. CWP No. 7441/2011-I

4. Roop Ram Sharma son of Shri Gulaba Ram, Conductor, working under Solan Unit, H.R.T.C., District Solan, H.P. Petitioner Respondents

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Versus Managing Director, Shimla. 2

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 5. CWP No.7930/2011-J Bachitter Singh son of Shri Ishar Singh, Conductor, ISBT, Delhi -110006 Respondents Petitioner Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its

2. Managing Director, Shimla. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.

6. CWP No.7932/2011-J Geeta Ram son of Shri Lachhi Ram, Chowkidar, ISBT, Delhi-110006 Petitioner Respondents

2. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. CWP No.7933/2011-J

7. Parvinder Kumar son of Late Shri Jagdish Chand, Booking Clerk, ISBT, Delhi-110006 Petitioner Respondents Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla.

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. CWP No.7936/2011-J

8. Inder Raj son of Late Shri Piarey Lal, Booking Clerk, ISBT, Delhi-110006 Petitioner Respondents Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla.

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. CWP No.7937/2011-J

9. Raj Kumar son of Late Shri Chuni Lal, Conductor, ISBT, Delhi-110006. Petitioner Respondents Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla. 3

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. Respondents

10. CWP No.7938/2011-J Ashok Kumar son of Late Shri Panu Ram, Sweeper/Wash Boy, ISBT, Delhi-110006 Petitioner Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla.

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. Respondents

11. CWP No.7444/2011-I Jasbir Singh son of Shri Mansha Ram, Conductor, ISBT, Delhi-110006 Petitioner Versus

1. Himachal Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla.

2. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. Respondents Civil Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. For the Petitioners: Mr.Manohar Lal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. General, Advocate respondent-State. M/s Vijay Verma in CWPs No. 7933, 7936 of 2011 Adarsh K. Sharma in CWPs No. 7932, 7938, 7440 of 2011 and Vikrant Thakur, Advocates in 7408, 7930, 7937, 7440, 7441, 7444 of 2011 for HRTC Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Re-heard. All the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. In these petitions, petitioners 4 have assailed the office memorandum dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure P-1), instructions

28.8.2003 (Annexure P-3) and 20.1.2011 (Annexure P-14). In terms of these instructions, Government of Himachal Pradesh, has directed the Managing Directors/CEOs/ Registrars of all Public Sector Undertakings/ Boards/ Universities within the State of Himachal Pradesh to maintain uniform pattern of House Rent Allowance (HRA) payable to all the employees of respective organizations. The HRA is directed to be paid as per ceiling prescribed by the Government as applicable to the Public Sector Undertakings.

2. The respondent-State has placed on record material to show that Corporations/ Boards are taking remedial measures compliance notifications.

3. Petitioners have also assailed order dated

10.2.2011 (Annexure P-13) passed pursuant to the judgment dated 5.10.2010 passed in CWP No. 2843 of 2009, titled as Gopal Singh vs. HRTC.

4. I have perused the said judgment as also the impugned order dated 10.2.2011. In my considered view, contentions so raised by the petitioners, reference of which is specifically recorded in the judgment dated 5.10.2010, have not been considered by the respondents at all, while deciding the petitioners(cid:146) case and passing the impugned order. 5 The observation made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment with regard to petitioners(cid:146) contention that as per the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission, petitioners are entitled to HRA @ 30% has neither been considered nor specifically adverted to.

5. As such, without going into the other contentions so raised by the petitioners in these petitions, impugned order dated 10.2.2011 (Annexure P-13) is set aside with a direction to respondent No.2 to have a re-look and take a fresh decision, specially dealing with the issues so raised by the petitioners in their representation (Annexure P-12) and observations made by the Court. The decision in that regard be positively taken within a period of two weeks from today.

6. Significantly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court decided CWP (T) No. 2031 of 2008, titled as Sukh Ram Chandel versus State of H.P. and another, which stands affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 108 of 2009, titled as H.P. Tourism Corporation vs. Sukh Ram Chandel and another vide judgment dated 24.5.2012 that all similarly situated employees are to be treated equally. While taking the decision on the petitioners(cid:146) representation(s), the respondent No.2 shall keep in mind the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. 6

7. With the aforesaid observations, all the petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. 19th September, 2012 (C) (Sanjay Karol) Judge.