Belated overtime claim by retired conductor, raised eight years post-superannuation, rejected due to unexplained delay, laches, and acquiescence, barring equitable relief in service matters.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the respondents-Corporation rejecting his case for release of overtime claim for 212 days.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file.

3. Background

(i) Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1986. He superannuated from the service of the respondents-Corporation on 30.09.2017. Fateh Singh Vs. HRTC & Ors. OA No. 1773/2017 decided on 02.05.2019 was instituted by him seeking release of his retiral benefits in terms of decision rendered in Nek Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP No.3050/2014 decided on 17.07.2014 The relief clause of the said petition (extracted from the judgment) reads as under:-

“7(i) Respondent may kindly be directed to release all the retiral dues/pensionary benefits and other dues as mentioned in Para 6(d) (i) to (v) above along-with interest @ 9% per annum to the applicant being covered by the judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 3050/2014 titled as Nek Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. contained in Annexure A-3.

(ii) Respondents may further be directed to pay pension to the applicant, regularly, on 1st day of every month.”

The aforesaid original application was decided on 02.05.2019 directing the respondents-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram2. With the grievance that the decision rendered in Fateh Singh, had not been implemented, the petitioner preferred Fateh Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Ex. PT No. 308/2021 decided on 05.04.2023 The said execution petition was disposed of on 05.04.2023 with the observation that all retiral benefits along with interest had been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner at that stage raised the grievance that arrears on account of overtime had not been paid to him, therefore, judgment had not been executed in letter and spirit. On the said contention, the Court held that the issue of overtime was not covered with Nek Ram2 and no illegality could be said to have been committed by the respondents while restricting the claim of the petitioner to DCRG, leave encashment and grant of statutory interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. The proceedings in the execution petition were closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal in-law for his surviving grievances. The order passed on 05.04.2023 disposing of the execution petition reads as under: -

“While placing on record communication dated nil issued under the signature of Regional Manager, HRTC Mandi, Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel, states that judgment sought to be executed in the instant proceedings stands duly complied with.

2. Having perused aforesaid communication, this court finds that in terms of the judgment sought to be executed, DCRG and leave encashment alongwith up-to-date interest stand paid to the petitioner. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since arrears on account of overtime have not been paid, judgment cannot be said to be executed in its letter and spirit, but having perused judgment rendered by this Court in Nek Ram’s case, this Court finds that issue of overtime is not covered with the Nek Ram’s case and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while restricting the claim of the petitioner to DCRG and leave encashment.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua the surviving grievance if any.”

(ii) The pe