Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 6Th August vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 6 August, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2025:HHC:26516 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5374 of 2024 Decided on: 6th August, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner
.
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and another .....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks directions to the respondent-
Corporation to release payment in lieu of 149 days of accumulated compensatory leaves falling to his credit by computing them on the last Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance drawn by him at the time of his superannuation @ 12% interest p.a. from due date till actual payment. Respondents plead that due and admissible amount, as directed by the Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, has already been paid to him in lieu of his compensatory leaves.
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS -2- 2025:HHC:26516
2. Background.
2(i). The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the
respondent-Corporation in the year 1987. He retired as .
Inspector on 31.10.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. CWP No.9370 of 2023 was instituted by the petitioner claiming payment in lieu of 149 days of accumulated compensatory leaves along with interest at the market rate. The respondents did not file reply to the petition. The writ petition was disposed of on 11.12.2023 with directions to the respondents to release admitted dues within a period of two months. The judgment reads as under:-
"The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:
"a). That the Respondent may kindly be directed to pay extra wages in lieu of un-allowed 149 days compensatory leave (sunday rests) for work done on days of rest in terms of Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, with interest at market rate till such time the payment is made."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submits that the Corporation admits its liability to pay dues as are being sought in the present petition in terms of the relief quoted hereinabove. However, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation seeks time to pay the aforesaid admitted dues.
3. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-Corporation to pay the admitted dues within a period of two months from today.
4. List for compliance on 02.03.2024.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS -3- 2025:HHC:26516
2(ii). The disposed of writ petition was ordered to be
listed for compliance on 02.03.2024.
2(iii). On 13.05.2024, when the disposed of CWP
.
No.9370 of 2023 was listed before the Court for reporting compliance, learned counsel for the parties apprised that payment in lieu of 149 days of accumulated compensatory leaves had been released to the petitioner. Respondents filed office instructions, placing on record calculation sheet concerning payment for compensatory leaves. The calculations depicted computation of amount on the basis of provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act. Taking note of the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents, the proceedings in the writ petition were closed vide following order dated 13.05.2024:-
"Instructions have been placed on record, according to which an amount of Rs.2,02,965/- has been paid to the petitioner on 18.03.2024 in lieu of extra wages for work done on 149 days of weekly rest.
The claim of the petitioner stands satisfied and no further orders are required to be passed and the petition is accordingly closed."
Notably, neither any liberty was availed nor was the same granted to the petitioner for filing a fresh petition on the same cause of action.
3. In support of the claim made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that payment in ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:26516 lieu of compensatory leaves was made by the respondent-
Corporation to S/Sh. Sant Ram, Rishi Ram, Ram Krishan and Kushal Singh, by calculating the same on last Basic Pay .
+ Dearness Allowance drawn by them at the time of their superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not have been discriminated vis-à-vis aforesaid four persons. In case of petitioner also, payment for compensatory leaves was required to be calculated on the basis of last Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance which the petitioner had drawn at the time of his superannuation, i.e. on 31.10.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.2 to buttress his argument that when a particular set of employee is given relief, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit since not doing so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record an office communication dated 08.03.2019 to highlight that the Board of Directors of the respondent-
Corporation in its 145th meeting held on 17.02.2019 had 2 (2015) 1 SCC 347 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:26516 approved to carry forward the compensatory leaves till December, 2019. Learned counsel submitted that once the compensatory leaves had been carried forward, it was .
incumbent upon the respondents to have paid for them on the basis of last pay drawn by the petitioner instead of calculating the same on the basis of pay, which the petitioner was drawing at the time of accrual of compensatory leave.
Opposing the above plea, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation while canvassing the pleaded defense contended that compensatory leave is payable to the petitioner in accordance with Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The payment for compensatory leaves to the petitioner was in accordance with the above provision and also in accordance with directions issued in CWP No.9370 of 2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the payment in lieu of compensatory leaves accruing to four workers, i.e. S/Sh. Sant Ram, Rishi Ram, Ram Krishan and Kushal Singh, was not made in accordance with law.
The payment was made to them erroneously and the respondent-Corporation is in the process of withdrawing the said erroneous orders as the employee does not have right to claim compensatory leave on the basis of last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation.
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS -6- 2025:HHC:26516
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the case file.
4(i). It is a matter of record that CWP No.9370 of 2023
.
was moved by the petitioner with the grievance that he had not been paid for his accumulated compensatory leaves for 149 days. The petitioner had sought directions to the respondents to make him payment for accumulated compensatory leaves @ 12% interest p.a. Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 11.12.2013 with directions to the respondents to pay admitted dues within a period of two months. Petitioner though had also claimed interest, but there was no direction to the respondents to pay any interest on the admissible amount.
It is also not in dispute that respondents have paid for 149 days of accumulated compensatory leaves of the petitioner as directed in the aforesaid decision.
4(ii). The surviving grievance of the petitioner as raised in the present petition concerns the basis for calculating the payment made to him in lieu of his accumulated compensatory leaves. According to the petitioner, he is to be paid on the analogy of the payment made to S/Sh. Sant Ram, Rishi Ram, Ram Krishan and Kushal Singh.
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS-7- 2025:HHC:26516 It is not in dispute that the aforesaid four persons-employees of the respondent-Corporation had been paid for the accumulated compensatory leaves on the basis .
of last Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance drawn by them at the time of their superannuation, whereas, in case of petitioner, the calculations have been made on the basis of petitioner's Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance drawn by him at the time, the compensatory leaves accrued to him.
Respondents' defense is that payment in lieu of compensatory leaves falling to the credit to the aforesaid four persons had been made on the basis of erroneous calculations. The calculations are required to be carried out on the basis of Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. That respondent-Corporation is contemplating to withdraw the amount paid in excess to the aforesaid four persons on account of erroneous calculations.
4(iii). At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 26 the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961:-
"26. Extra wages for overtime.--(1) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the first provision to section 13 or where he is required to work on any day of rest under sub-section (2) of section 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the overtime work or the work done on the day of rest, as the case may be.
(2) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:26516 in the second proviso to section 13, he shall be entitled to wages in respect of the overtime work at such rates as may be prescribed.
(3) Where an adolescent motor transport worker is required to work on any day of rest under subsection (2) of sub-section 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the work .
done on the day of rest.
(4) For the purposes of this section, "ordinary rate of wages" in relation to a motor transport worker means his basic wages plus dearness allowance."
No serious objection was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Section is applicable to the case of the petitioner for calculating the payment to be made for his accumulated compensatory leaves. It is not the case of the petitioner that payment made to him by the respondents in lieu of his accumulated compensatory leaves was not on the basis of or in consonance with Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. That being the factual and legal position, merely because compensatory leaves were erroneously paid in case of four workers of respondent-Corporation contrary to provisions of Section 26 of the Act, would not mean that illegality is required to be committed in case of petitioner as well. It is well-settled that there cannot be any negative parity. A Court of law cannot issue directions for grant of relief on the claim of negative parity. R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:26516 & Ors.3 holds that benefit conferred on a set of people without legal basis or justification, can neither be multiplied or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. Relevant .
portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"24. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 this court ruled that:
"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by r mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated."
Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref: Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745; Anand Buttons Ltd. v State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164 K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455; and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 15 SCC 715 and). Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 this court observed as follows:
"If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.""3
2022 SCCOnLine SC 151 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS
-10- 2025:HHC:26516 The principle laid down in Arvind Kumar Srivastava2 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the instant case. The said .
decision applies to a case where judgment in rem is delivered by the Court of law. The said judgment then is required to be given effect to all other identically situated persons. Instant is not a case where a decision has been rendered in rem, which is to be applied to the case of petitioner.
4(iv). Further, simply because compensatory leaves of the petitioner have been carried forward from the year of their accrual and have not been allowed to lapse would not mean that they are to be paid on the basis of last pay drawn, i.e. at the time of superannuation. The payment has to be made in accordance with law, i.e. in accordance with provisions of Section 26 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.
Learned counsel for the petitioner's fervent prayer for granting interest on the delayed payment of compensatory leaves from due dates also cannot be countenanced in this second round of litigation. CWP No.9370 of 2023 instituted by him was disposed of on 11.12.2023 with directions to the respondents to pay for petitioner's accumulated compensatory leaves within four ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS
-11- 2025:HHC:26516 weeks. There was no direction to the respondents to pay interest on the amount. Petitioner accepted this order. The respondents calculated the amount payable to the petitioner .
on account of accumulated compensatory leaves. The due payment was made by the respondents to the petitioner. This has been acknowledged in the final order passed in the matter on 13.05.2024, closing the proceedings with the observations that 'The claim of the petitioner stands satisfied'. This question, therefore, has attained finality and cannot be raised afresh now in the second round of litigation.
5. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
August 06, 2025 Judge
Mukesh
::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 21:31:17 :::CIS