IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 7336 of 2008. Decided on 9th December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Kuldeep Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : None. For the respondents. : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 5th March, 1968. He was promoted to the post of Driver in 1972. On 17th July, 1993, the petitioner was designated as Store Helper on medical grounds. He sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 24.08.2000. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that his date of annual increment has been changed unilaterally from 1st November every year to 1st July every year. In other words, the annual increment of the petitioner, which was due on 1st November, 1993 was denied and it was advanced to 1st July, 1994. Petitioner has neither been issued any show-cause notice nor was he heard before the decision of advancing the date of increment was taken by the respondent-Corporation. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 3. Case of the respondent-Corporation, precisely is that since the petitioner was absorbed as Store Helper, he was required to be put in the pay scale of Class-IV. According to the respondent-Corporation, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Store Helper was afresh. Further case of the respondent- Corporation is that since the petitioner has never opted to retain his pay in the old pay scale till the date of earning his next increment, the date of increment was changed while his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Class-IV. 4. The petitioner was absorbed on medical grounds as Store Helper. His date of increment was November. However, the same has been unilaterally changed to July, 1994. In other words, petitioner’s salary was reduced. The decision has been taken on 31.05.2000 and the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement on 24.08.2000. The Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should have been heard before taking the decision of advancing the date of increment. He has suffered civil and evil consequences. The appointment of the petitioner was not required to be treated as afresh, since he was already serving the respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 05.03.1968, initially as Conductor and thereafter as Driver. It was only due to medical grounds that he was re-designated as Store Helper, in which capacity he has worked till the date of his voluntary retirement, i.e., 24.08.2000. Petitioner was not required to give option to retain his pay in the old pay scale, since he has been absorbed on a lower post and his salary as Driver was protected. The appointment of the petitioner was not to be treated as afresh, as pleaded by the respondent-Corporation. He has only - 3 - been re-designated and absorbed as Store Helper, that too on medical grounds. 5. Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on 24.08.2000. His retiral benefits, including gratuity amounting to `1, 15, 408.00/- and pension of `2481.00 per month have been withheld without any cogent and convincing reason. He has been deprived of the retiral/pensionary benefits in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. Petitioner has earned his retiral benefits by working for requisite number of years and should not have been deprived of the same. The retiral benefits must be paid immediately when they become due and for that purpose, the process must be started in right earnest as per C.C.S. (Pension) Rules before the retirement took place. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The action of the respondents of advancing the date of increment of the petitioner from 1st November, 1993 to 1st July, 1994 is declared illegal. The respondent-Corporation is directed to release the salary of the petitioner by treating his date of increment from 1st November, 1993 instead of 1st July, 1994. The retiral benefits of the petitioner be released including gratuity amounting to `1, 15, 408.00/- and pension of `2481.00 per month, as mentioned in the reply, if not already released. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from today. The respondent-Corporation is directed to inform the petitioner about the judgment since neither the petitioner is present in person nor he is represented by any Advocate within a period of - 4 - one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 09, 2010. (bhupender) - 5 - `