##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.20270 of 2025 alongwith

connected matters

Decided on: 23rd December, 2025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. CWP No.20270 of 2025

Inderjeet …..Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation o

and others .....Respondents

----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------

2. CWP No.20272 of 2025

Beli Ram …..Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation

and others .....Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CWP No.20292 of 2025

Gian Chand …..Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation

and others .....Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. CWP No.20294 of 2025

Naresh Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation

and others .....Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:33:10 :::CIS

2

5. CWP No.20296 of 2025

Kanhya Lal …..Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation

and others .....Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge .

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioners: Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Mr. Vinod Kumar

Guptar, Mr. Deepak Sharma and

Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocates, in the

respective petitions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

NotCice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Mr. Vinod Kumar

Gupta, Mr. Deepak Sharma and Mr. Rahul Gathania,

learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on

gbehalf of the respondents in the respective writ petitions.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant

of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP

No.20270 of 2025 reads as under:-

“(a) To implement their own orders dated 22.07.2023

(Annexure P-1); revise petitioner’s pension at 50% of the

levels of the Pay Matrix w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and release

1

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:33:10 :::CIS

3

entire arrears w.e.f. 01.07.2023 onwards along with

interest @ 9% per annum.”

4. Petitioners superannuated from the service of

respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC).

They are drawing pension as retired employees. Petitioners’

case is that the Board of Directors of the respondent-

Corporation in its 153rd meeting held on f19.06.2023, vide

Item No.153.07, has approved revision of pension/family

pension at 50% and 30% of the levels of Pay Matrix w.e.f.

01.01.2016 in respect of pensioners/family pensioners of

the respondent-Corporation. Memo in this regard was

issued by the respondent-Corporation on 22.07.2023

(Annexure P-1). The said memo was on the analogy of State

Government notification dated 08.09.2022. Para 3 of

aforesaid memo dated 22.07.2023 orders for implementing

the decision of the Board of Directors and release of revised

ipension/family pension w.e.f. July, 2023 onwards after

completing all codal formalities pursuant to the State

Government notification dated 08.09.2022.

5. Petitioners’ grievance is that despite the

issuance of memo dated 22.07.2023, their pension has

neither been revised by 50% of the level of Pay Matrix w.e.f.

01.01.2016 nor arrears of revised pension have been paid

to them w.e.f. 01.07.2023 onwards. Representations

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:33:10 :::CIS

4

preferred by the petitioners to respondent No.2 (annexed as

Annexure P-2 in all the petitions) for allowing them revised

pension at 50% of the level of pay matrix w.e.f. 01.01.2016P

have not yielded any response so far.

6. As noticed above, memo was issued by the

respondent-Corporatio