Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Kirpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
HRTC – Respondent
CWP No.7760 of 2025 | CWP No.7762 of 2025 | CWP No.7764 of 2025 | CWP No.7766 of 2025 | CWP No.7768 of 2025 | CWP No.7770 of 2025 | CWP No.7772 of 2025 | CWP No.7774 of 2025 | CWP No.7776 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma
Reliance on judgments from other states without substantive claims does not warrant judicial relief.
Headnote:The petitions were filed by retired employees seeking grant of a grade pay, based on an earlier judgment which allowed similar claims for another state. The court found the reliance on this judgment misplaced, emphasizing the non-applicability of rulings from other jurisdictions without substantive basis in the petitioner’s claims, and directed the Board of Directors to address new representations within a specified time. The court did not adjudicate the merits of the initial claims but stipulated procedural directions for consideration of new submissions. The relief claimed was deemed without sufficient foundation and the petitions were dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek unpaid grade pay based on previous rulings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge All these petitions are identical, based upon same set of pleadings, claiming same relief, hence, are taken up together.
2. Petitioners are retired employees of the respondent-Corporation, aged between 63 to 70 years. They have prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-
“i. That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent Corporation to release the grade pay of Rs.3,200/-.
ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to pay the grade pay as above along with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner with effect from due date till the date of its realization.”
For convenience, facts and averments from CWP No.7760 of 2025 are being adverted to.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 01.09.1989. He superannuated on 31.01.2019. Six years after his superannuation, he instituted this writ petition seeking Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- has been claimed solely on the basis of a decision rendered in Pardeep Kumar and others Versus State of Punjab and others2. The aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinafter:-
“2. The prayer in the present petitions is for quashing the order dated 20.02.2014 as well as the letter dated 16.01.2014 and consequential proceedings as also for directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs.3200 with an initial pay of Rs.13,500 w.e.f. 01.12.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that during pendency of the present petitions, substantive relief has been granted to them inasmuch as the anomaly stands removed, however, for the period from the year 2011 to 2021, the discrepancy/anomaly in the basic pay still remains which needs to be addressed by the respondents, with regard to which, the submission made is that as per the schedule appended with the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scale of Pay) Rules, 1969, the post of Conductor and Clerk were equated in the matter of grant of pay scale/emoluments. The position remained so till the issuance of notification dated 15.12.2011, implemented w.e.f. 01.12.2011, vide which Clerks were granted the revised scale of Rs.10,300-34,800/- with grade of Rs.3200 plus initial pay of Rs. 13,500/-, whereas similar benefit has been denied to the petitioners while working on the post of Conductors, thereby breaking the pay parity without any cogent reasons whatsoever. Learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioners, pray that a fresh representation would be submitted by relying on the judgments supporting their claim, which may be directed to be decided in a time bound manner.
4. Learned State counsel has no objection to the limited prayer made.
5. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitions are hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioners submit representations within a period of 4 weeks, the same shall be considered and decided, within a further period of 6 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Upon doing so, after notice and hearing offered to them and if found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall contain reasons and the petitioners shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon.”
From the above judgment, it can be deduced that c
