Shet Ram vs HRTC
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.3351 of 2020
Decided on: 03.09.2026
__________________________________________________________
Shet Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents
and another
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Sharma and Ms. Mamta K.
Bhatwan, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Singh Chauhan, Advocate
vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner-Shet Ram, filed an Original Application
No.6689 of 2017, before Learned State Administrative
Tribunal and after the abolition of Tribunal, the matter
stood transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.3351 of 2020,
seeking the following relief:-
“7 (i) That the impugned office order
dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure A-3) may
kindly be quashed and set
aside with the direction to the respondents
to grant the benefit of two additional
increments to the applicant after
completion of 20 years’ service as well as
the respondents may further be
directed to grant the benefit
of proficiency increment after completion
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
2
of 32 years’ service with all consequential
benefits.”
2. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for
High Court of H.P.
the petitioner states on Instructions that the petitioner
is not pressing the relief with respect to the benefit
of proficiency increment after completion of 32 years’ service
but has confined his claim only with respect
to grant of two additional increments after completion
of 20 years’ service. [Statement is taken on record].
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that
the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on daily
waged basis w.e.f. 14.03.1983 and his services were
regularized as such w.e.f. 09.12.1983 [Annexure A-1].
It is averred that the petitioner retired on attaining the
age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. It is averred that
the Respondent-Corporation has issued a Notification
dated 10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2], wherein, the Respondent-
Corporation has decided to grant two additional increments
to the Conductors working in Himachal Road Transport
Corporation [‘HRTC’] who had completed 20 years’ service
as Conductors, without availing any further promotion. It
is further averred that as per Clause-IV of the Notification
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
3
dated 10.09.2015 the petitioner having
[Annexure A-2],
High Court of H.P.
completed 20 years of service as a Conductor, was entitled
to be considered and granted two additional increments
from the date of completion of 20 years of service ‘notionally’
and the actual benefits were to accrue to the petitioner
w.e.f. 01.07.2015. It is averred that the petitioner submitted
a representation dated 22.08.2016 but the claim of the
petitioner was rejected on 21.09.2016 [Annexure A-3] on
the ground that two additional increments after completion
of 20 years’ service cannot be granted to the petitioner, as
the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2015, whereas, the
Notification granting these benefits were issued only on
10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2]. It is in this backdrop, the
petitioner has prayed for grant of two additional
increments on completion of 20 years’ service w.e.f.
08.12.2003 on ‘notional basis’ and thereafter with all
consequential benefits.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS-CORPORATION:
4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 08.01.2018,
the Respondent-Corporation was directed to file Reply.
However, the matter was admitted on 27.10.2020. Post-
admission, the matter was again listed on 23.02.2021,
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
4
when the Respondents-Corporation were granted last
High Court of H.P.
opportunity to file Reply-Affidavit. Material on record
indicates that the Respondents-Corporation chose not to
file the Reply-Affidavit, despite stop order passed by this
Court on 23.02.2021.
5. Heard, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate assisted
by Ms. Mamta K. Bhatwan, Advocate, for the petitioner
and Mr. Abhijeet Singh Chauhan, Advocate vice
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the respondents-
HRTC.
6. For appreciating the claim, it is necessary to
have a recap of the Notification dated 10.09.2015 [Annexure
A-2] prescribing the grant of two additional increments to
the Conductors, alike the petitioner, in the following terms:-
Annexure A-2 Dated 10.09.2015
“HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
SHIMLA-171003
No. HO.9E-1084/Conductor-20 Year Increment/
2015 Dated: 10.09.2015
NOTIFICATION
In accordance with the decision taken by the
th
Board of Directors of HRTC in its 130 meeting held
on 17.07.2015 to allow two additional increments to
the conductors working in HRTC, who have completed
20 years of service as conductor without availing any
further promotion. I, Ashok Tewari, Managing Director,
Himachal Road Transport Corporation, on behalf of the
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
5
Board of Directors of HRTC, do hereby notify under
Section 13 of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 as
High Court of H.P.
follows:-
i) That the serving conductors who have completed
20 years of the continuous service as on 01.07.2015
without availing any promotion to the next
promotional post during this period shall be allowed
two additional increments.
ii) The benefit of two additional increments shall
also be admissible to those conductors in future
who are going to complete 20 years of continuous
service as a conductor without availing any
promotion to the next promotional post, shall be
st
allowed on two dates only i.e 1 January of the
st
years and 1 July of the year.
iii) The serving conductors who will complete 20 years
st
of continuous service after 1 July of the year
st
will get two additional increments on 1 January of
the next years and those conductors who will
st
complete 20 years of continuous service after 1
st st
January till 1 July will get this benefit on 1
July of the year.
iv) In case of those conductors who have already
completed 20 years of service before issue of this
notification, however did not get any promotion
till 01.07.2015 shall also be granted two additional
increments on completion of 20 years service as
on 01.07.2015 on actual basis and notionally
w.e.f. the date of completion of 20 years of
service.
v) The grant of two additional increments shall not be
treated as gain for purpose of benefit under ACP
Scheme.
vi) The criteria and other conditions for allowing the
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
6
benefit of two additional increments shall be same
as followed during grant of higher scales or as
High Court of H.P.
in ACP Scheme and will be evaluated by
committee consisting of RM/AC(F&A)/SO(SAS) and
Superintendent.
vii) The financial benefit of additional two increments
shall be applicable only to those conductors
who have rendered 20 years continuous service
with actual bus operation only and the remaining
conductors/TMPAs will not be entitled for this
benefit.
By order and in the name of Board of
Directors (HRTC)
Sd/-
(Ashok Tewari) IPS
Managing Director,
Himachal Road Transport Corporation,
Shimla-171003.”
ANALYSIS:
7. Taking into account the entirety of facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that
the rejection order dated 21.09.2016 [Annexure A-3]
disallowing the claim of the petitioner for two additional
increments on completion of 20 years’ service as Conductor
w.e.f. 08.12.2003 cannot stand the test of judicial
scrutiny, for the following reasons:-
7(i). Respondents-Corporation issued a Notification
dated 10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2] deciding to grant two
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
7
additional increments to the Conductors working
High Court of H.P.
in HRTC who had completed 20 years’ service as
Conductors, without availing any further promotion; and
secondly, perusal of Clause-IV of Notification dated
10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2] expressly provided that,
in case, those Conductors, who have already completed
20 years of service and who did not get any promotion
during this period of 20 years shall be granted two
additional increments from the date of completion of
20 years’ service on notional basis and an on actual
basis w.e.f. 01.07.2015; and thirdly, indisputably, once
the petitioner had rendered 20 years of service as
Conductor on regular basis from 09.12.1983 to 08.12.2003
i.e. prior to the cut-off date i.e. 01.07.2015 in the
Notification dated 10.09.2015, then, the petitioner is certainly
entitled for the benefit of two additional increments from
the date of completion of 20 years’ service as Conductor
notionally w.e.f. 08.12.2003 and in terms of the said
Notification; and fourthly, Notification dated 10.09.2015
[Annexure A-2] carves out ineligibility for granting two
additional increments, in case , a person has not earned
promotion to the higher post during a span of 20 years
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
8
or prior to 01.07.2015 in terms of the Notification dated
High Court of H.P.
10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2] and the factual matrix
does not indicate that the petitioner stood promoted from
the post of Conductor to a higher post in instant case;
and fifthly, mere placement of the petitioner, if any, as
an Adda Incharge or otherwise, shall not disentitle the
petitioner for grant of two additional increments in
terms of Notification dated 10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2]
and sixthly, disentitlement or ineligibility cannot be carved
out dehors the Scheme-Notification, shall defeat the object
and rationale of giving these additional increments
in lieu of prolonged stagnation on post of Conductor
coupled with performance of duties in peculiar conditions;
and seventhly, once Clause-IV of Notification dated
10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2] confers eligibility and entitlement
on the petitioner for grant of two additional increments,
on completion of 20 years of service as a Conductor
‘notionally’, from the date of completion of 20 years [w.e.f.
08.12.2003] and on actual basis w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and
Clause-IV entitles those Conductors who have completed 20
years of service on a date prior to the issuance of
Notification dated 10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2], alike the
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
9
petitioner, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold
High Court of H.P.
that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for grant of two
additional increments in terms of the Notification dated
10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2]; and lastly, the rejection order
dated 21.09.2016 [Annexure A-3] is vitiated by non-
application of mind, for the reason, denial of two additional
increments by ignoring Clause-IV of Notification dated
10.09.2015 [Annexure A-2], which entitles the petitioner for
grant of benefits notionally from the date of completion of
20 years’ service as Conductor w.e.f. 08.12.2003 on notional
basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 01.07.2015 cannot sustain.
An acquired right and entitlement cannot be scuttled or
negated, on the plea that petitioner stood retired on
30.06.2015. Plea of retirement cannot be invoked so as to
deny the legal entitlements which became due notionally
w.e.f. 08.12.2003 and an actual basis from 01.07.2015.
Rejection of claim reveals non-application of mind leads
to perversity in decision making process and consequently,
the rejection order dated 21.09.2016 [Annexure A-3]
cannot sustain and is declared inoperative and is set
aside.
8. Even the issue regarding the admissibility of
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
10
two additional increments on completion of 20 years ‘ service
High Court of H.P.
as Conductor stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4167
of 2019, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Versus Suresh Kumar, decided on 29.11.2021, approving
the entitlement of an Conductor for two additional
increments, which cannot be negated, merely, on the ground,
that an incumbent was re-designated as Conductors- Adda
Incharge by the Respondents-Corporation, as re-designation
of an incumbent does not amount to promotion, in the
following terms:-
“6. Insofar as the relief (i) in the O.A. No. 797 of 2016
was concerned, the same was allowed and the
petitioner herein was directed to grant two
additional increments to the respondents herein
on notional basis with effect from the
respective dates of completion of their 20
years of service as Conductor.
11. Perusal of above noticed notification especially
Clause (iv) thereof does not justify the stand taken
by the petitioner herein, rather plain reading of
such Clause reveals that it applied to all
Conductors, who had not been promoted till
01.07.2015 even after rendering 20 years of service
before issuance of the notification. Admittedly,
respondents herein had completed 20 years of
service much before the issuance of this
notification and had also not got any promotion
before 01.07.2015, therefore, the denial of benefit
of two additional increments as per notification
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
11
dated 10.09.2015 to them cannot be justified.
Merely because the respondents herein were
High Court of H.P.
re-designated as Conductors-Adda Incharge
cannot be a ground to deny them the benefit
as aforesaid. It is settled that re-designation of a
post does not amount to promotion especially in
the case of respondents herein where the order
of re-designation specifically provided that such
re-designation did not involve assumption of
duties and responsibilities of higher nature and
as such, FR 22-1(a) (i) was not to be attracted.
12. Learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order by
taking into consideration all the relevant material.
The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal are
based on facts available on record, therefore, we do
not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal.
14. In light of above discussion, we find no merit in
the instant petition and the same is dismissed
with no order as to costs.”
CONCLUSION:
9. Considering the material on record, pertinently,
instant petition was filed on 14.12.2017 and since then,
the Respondents-Corporation have chosen not to file a
response thereto for last about nine years, therefore,
considering the facts and Notification dated 10.09.2015
[Annexure A-2] and the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar
and others [supra], the petitioner is held entitled for
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
12
two additional increments as Conductor, as he had not
High Court of H.P.
earned any promotion during the aforesaid period. Mere
placement, if any, as Conductor-Adda Incharge shall not
be construed as an ineligibility for granting two additional
increments, which had accrued to the petitioner notionally
from the date of completion of 20 years’ service w.e.f.
08.12.2003 and on actual basis w.e.f. 01.07.2015. However,
in facts of instant case, since the petitioner stood retired
on 30.06.2015, therefore the benefit shall be construed
notionally as on 01.07.2015 and these notional increments
shall be taken into account for giving revised retiral
benefits of the petitioner.
DIRECTIONS:
10. In view of above discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is
allowed , in the following terms:-
(i) Rejection order dated 21.09.2016 [Annexure A-3]
is quashed and set aside;
(ii) Respondents-Corporation shall consider and
upon consideration, to release two additional
increments as Conductor from the date of
completion of 20 years’ service as Conductor
on ‘notional basis’ w.e.f. 08.12.2003 and on
actual basis w.e.f. 01.07.2015 [even though retired
on 30.06.2015] by counting said increments
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37612 REPORTABLE
13
for all retiral benefits w.e.f. 01.07.2015 with all
consequential benefits, including revised retiral
High Court of H.P.
benefits, four weeks from today;
(iii) In case, benefits are not released within
four weeks, Respondents-Corporation shall be
liable to pay interest at the rate
of 6% per annum thereafter till realization; and
(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands
disposed of alongwith all pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 03, 2026
[Bhardwaj]
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 15:30:23 :::CIS