Padam Singh Thakur vs HRTC

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

"(a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count bound duty hours, subsidiary duties, duties discharged during break down, etc., towards duty hours and further be released overtime as per schedule.

(b) That the Night Out Allowance (NOA) may be released on the basis of basic pay instead of flat rate of Rs. 130/-. Further the admitted NOA released vide communication dated 3.10.2012 released w.e.f. 1.4.2012 till 31.12.2012 may be directed to be paid to the applicant without prejudice and conceding to legal rights.

(c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to review/reconcile the calculations and record of the overtime duties including bound duty, subsidiary duties, break down etc., since 2009 and further to release the due arrears with interest @ 18% till realization.

(d) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release double the wages qua 130 weekly rest during the period 1.4.2012 till October, 2014 during which concept of work to rule was implemented and to release all other benefits."

During the proceedings of the case, Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel, placed on record communication dated 1.9.2020, which is taken on record, to demonstrate that sum of Rs. 17,800/- stands credited in the bank account of the petitioner through RTGS on account of arrears of Night Out Allowance.

Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate, states that arrears on account of Night Out Allowance have been not calculated at the uniform rate of Rs. 130/- as was agreed to be paid vide communication dated 28.2.2014 (Annexure A-5), but Mr. B.N. Sharma, after having obtained instructions from the concerned department specifically states before this Court that sum of Rs. 17,800/- has been calculated on the basis of uniform rate of Rs. 130 and as such, one of the main relief as has been prayed for in the instant petition stands granted to the petitioner. Mr. Narender Sharma, learned counsel, further states that though such amount was to be paid w.e.f 1st April, but same has been paid w.e.f. 1st June. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel, states that Board has decided to pay the amount from 1st June and as such, no grouse, if any, can be raised by the petitioner qua the same, however, this Court is of the view that if petitioner is entitled for the same w.e.f. 1st April, he be paid the same from the due date.

By way of instant petition, apart from aforesaid relief, petitioner has also prayed for other several reliefs, but this Court is of the view that such prayer(s) cannot be looked into in the instant proceedings, rather for that purpose, petitioner needs to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law.

Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and as such, same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law qua surviving grievances, if any.