Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chand Sharma vs Hrtc." on 19 April, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO.2743 OF 2020
.
Between:-
PARKASH CHAND SHARMA,
SON OF LATE SHRI KHEM
CHAND SHARMA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE & POST OFFICE
BUMPTI, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT
SOLAN, H.P.
......PETITIONER
(BY MR. DEVENDER KUMAR,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HIMACHAL ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, HRTC HEAD
OFFICE, SHIMLA - 171 003.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
HIMACHAL ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
HEAD OFFICE, SHIMLA-
171 003
......RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAMAN JAMALTA,
ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2022 20:06:38 :::CIS 2 following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) that the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for change of designation on the analogy of the judgment passed y Hon'ble High Court in CWP .
No. 3093/2009, titled as Jai Singh vs. HRTC."
2. Precise grouse/claim of the petitioner is that though he was appointed as a Junior Technician with the respondents/corporation in the year 1987, but from day one discharging services of clerk and as such, prayer made on his behalf for change of designation deserves to be accepted.
3. Aforesaid claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been seriously disputed by the respondents, who in their reply have specifically claimed that at no point of time, petitioner discharged the duties of clerk.
4. Mr. Devender Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 2.1.2012, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case title Jai Singh vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, contends that similar situate person namely Jai Singh, who was appointed as Conductor in the year 1990, but was made to discharge duty of court clerk, had approached this Court and this court having taken note of the fact that petitioner in that case was discharging the duties of court clerk, directed that petitioner in that case would be deemed to be appointed as clerk w.e.f. 15.11.1991 with all the consequential benefits. Above-named counsel further submits on the ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2022 20:06:38 :::CIS 3 instructions of the petitioner, who is present in the Court, that he would be content and satisfied, in case necessary directions are issued to the respondents-corporation to consider and decide his case in light of .
judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh's case supra in a time bound manner.
5. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Consequently, in view of the above present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents-corporation to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Singh's case supra, in a time bound manner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, if he is found to be similar situate, benefit granted to the petitioner in that petition, may also be granted to the petitioner, forthwith. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 19th April, 2022 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2022 20:06:38 :::CIS