Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/204/2010 on 29 December 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
COPC No. 204 of 2010.
Decided on: December 29, 2011.
Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Gulzari Lal, resident of Vakil Khana, Khallini, Shimla, Tehsil & District Shimla, HP.
……….Petitioner.
Versus
Sh. Bharat Kheria, Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Bus Stand, Shimla-3.
……….Respondent.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.
For the petitioner:
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent:
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
Petitioner’s grievance is that judgment dated 5.3.2010, has not been complied with. On 8th December, 2011, this Court directed the Corporation to file an affidavit clarifying the following aspect: “There will be a direction to respondent-Corporation to file an affidavit on the following aspect: i) What is the lowest time scale in the post of clerk as on the date of re-engagement of the petitioner, as is prevalent in the Corporation. It shall also be clarified as to what would be emoluments payable to a contract employee, in case he is appointed on the date of fresh appointment offered to the petitioner.”
2. The affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director wherein para 2 reads as follows: High Court of H.P. 2011:HHC:11691-DB ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 23:15:18 :::CIS
2 “2. That at the time of re-engagement of the petitioner in pursuance to the Judgment dated 05.03.2010 the clerks working on contract basis were being paid an amount of Rs. 3300/- with Annual incentive of Rs. 110/-. Thereafter the same was enhanced 20% w.e.f. 01.02.2011 & 10% w.e.f. 01.05.2011 respectively. At present the petitioner is drawing Rs. 4466/- + 100/- = Rs. 4566/-. Later on the Board of Directors, HRTC, in its decision dated 17.10.2011 has increased the emoluments to that of Rs. 5910/- per month with a rider that this amount will be payable to those employees who have been appointed after following the due process of Law. It was further made clear in the decision that these employees after completion of three years service will get Rs. 5910/- + 1900/- Grade pay i.e. Rs. 7810/- per Month.”
3. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be treated to have been validly appointed in view of the declaration made by this Court in the judgment and hence the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits as stated in the affidavit, extracted above.
4. In view of the apology tendered through the learned standing counsel for the delay, the COPC is dismissed and rule discharged.
Copy Dasti.
(Justice Kurian Joseph),
Chief Justice.
December 29, 2011,
( Justice Dev Darshan Sud), (karan/vs)
Judge.
High Court of H.P. 2011:HHC:11691-DB ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 23:15:18 :::CIS