IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2334 OF 2021 Between:

SHRI MOHIT SHARMA, S/O LATE SHRI SUBHASH CHAND, R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE BADOLI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT UNA, H.P., PRESENTLY WORKING AS CONDUCTOR, HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, UNA, DISTRICT H.P.

….PETITIONER.

(BY MR. RAKESH KUMAR DOGRA, ADVOCATE)

AND HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OLD BUS STAND, SHIMLA-171003.

….RESPONDENT.

(BY MS. SHUBH MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned order dated

04.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent may kindly be set aside and quashed being wrong, arbitrary, illegal, inapplicable, discriminatory, void ab- initio and violative of the judgment dated 08.02.2019 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 16158- 16165/2016) titled as Himachal .Road Transport Corporation Versus LeHkh Ram Etc., by issuing writ of Certiorari.

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issuedf, directing the respondent to regulaorize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 10.04.2007, strictly in accordance with the judgment dated 08.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) with all consequential service benefits.

(iii) That the respondent may further be directed to pay arrears of salary alongwith interest @ 9% per annum flowing out of regularization of the C petitioner as conductor w.e.f. 10.04.2007, by issuing writ of mandamus.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in hgarness on 25.10.2000, while in the service of the respondent-

iCorporation. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. After attaining the age of majority, he applied for employment assistance in accordance with kith and kin policy framed by the Corporation. The petitioner was engaged on contract basis vide office order dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P-1). His services were subsequently regularized vide office order dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-2), upon completion of six years contractual service. His contention is that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 1557-1564 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16158-16165 of 2016) titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram Etc., he is entitled for the regularization of his service from the initial date of his appointment. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4690 of 2020, which was disposed of by this CourtH vide order dated 27.10.2020, with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider and decide the case of the petiftioner in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Versus Lekh Ram (supra). The case of the petitioner stood rejected by the authority concerned vide office order dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) by assigning the following reasons:-

And whereas the State Government introduced the contractual policy vide notification daCted 12.12.203 accordingly amendments in the R&P Rules were made by the respondent-Corporation vide notification dated 03.09.2006, whereas petitioner applied for appointment under kith and kin policy on 05.02.2007 after attaining the age of majority. Accordingly, his case was screened by the Screening g Committee in accordance with the policy in existence at that relevant time and he was engaged on contract i basis w.e.f. 10.04.2007 and regularized w.e.f.

H 21.07.2014 after completion of seven years contractual policy in pursuance to the State Government instructions. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Court of HP in CWP No. 9094 of 2013, titled as Surinder Kumar with connected matter versus St