IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5279 of 2022 Decided on: 1st December, 2023 __________________________________________________________

Narender Singh & Anr.

....Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation Through its Managing Director & Anr.

……Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approveud for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Ms. Aanchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mrs. Reeta Thakur, Advocate with Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocate. Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

The petitioners being Drivers in the Respondent-

Corporation, initially on contract and subsequently H regularized, have came up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization w.e.f 2005

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

i.e. due date with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.

(ii) That impugned order 29.12.2021 Annexure P-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside being contrary to existing policy an.d law, in the interest of justice.”

2. Case of the petitioners, as submitted by Ms. Aanchal Sharma, learned vice counsel, is that the Respondent- Corporation issued an advertisement in December 2003 for recruitment of Drivers in the Corporation. Being eligible in terms of the advuertisement as well as the Himachal Road Transport Coorporation (Class I, II, III and IV) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations 1996, which were framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioners faced gthe selection process. Thereafter the petitioners were given iappointment as Driver, on contract basis, for a period of one year on 24th December, 2004, Annexure P-1, and in case of Petitioner No.2, he was appointed as such on 4.11.2004 Annexure P-1 (Colly).

3. Though the petitioners were appointed as Drivers, on contractual basis, as per Annexure P-1 (Colly) in November/December, 2004, initially for one year, but the respondents made the petitioners to continue as Drivers continuously and uninterruptedly till a decision was taken by the Corporation on 26.12.2012 that th.e contractual employees (including Drivers) who has completed six years of contractual service as on 31.3.2012, were to be considered for regularization. Consequently, the respondents regularized the petitioners as Drivers in pay band of Rs 5910-20200+2400 GP, with immediate effect on 28.12.2012, [Annexure P-2] in the year 2012, Annexure P-2.

4. The case in brief, is that the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, in exercise of powers under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, framed the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-I, II, III and IV) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Conditions of Service)

H Regulations, 1996 whereby, the selection/appointment to the post of Class-III categories, including the category of the petitioners-Drivers was to be made on regular basis only. Ms. Aanchal Sharma, learned vice counsel for the petitioners submits that based on the Government decision and the Instructions dated 12.12.2003 introducing the contractual mode of appointments, the Respondent-Corporation concerned amended the existing HRTC Regulations dated 3.3.1996 [Taken on Record] [referred to as the Regulations of 1996] only virtue of 5^th amendment on 3.8.2006 [referred to as Amended Regulations of 2006] [Taken on record] whereby, the contractual mode of recruitment/appointment in case of Drivers-petitioners was incorporated in the Service Regulations only on 3.8.2006.

5. In this background, the case of the petitioners is that once as per the Recruitment Regulations of 1996, the mode of appointment for the post of Drivers was only regular appointments and the contractual mode of appointment was only introduced in the Co