[2023:RJ-JP:22300]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 44/2019
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
General Manager, Parivahan Marg Jaipur
2. Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Dausa Depot (Rajasthan)
3. Executive Director Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur Parivahan Marg Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellants
Versus
Krishana Murari S/o Shri Verdhaman Singh Verma, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Village Madha (Kakola) District Dhaulpur Rajasthan
At Present Working As Conductor Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation Dausa Depot Dausa (Raj)
----Plaintiff-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Bairwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta with
Mr. Ankul Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
12/09/2023
This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 34 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application (244/2019), which is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, the same is allowed. Delay in preferring the civil second appeal is condoned.
This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:57:29 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22300] (2 of 4) [CSA-44/2019] brevity "the learned appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.3/2014 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Original Suit No.859/2003 for declaration, have been reversed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the appellants/defendants (for brevity "the defendants") stating therein that he was appointed as daily wager Conductor by the defendant-Corporation vide order dated 02.11.1984. It was averred that his services were terminated vide order dated 13.02.1985 which was set aside by the learned Civil Court in a suit filed by him thereagainst vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.1990 and the plaintiff was held entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits with continuity of service. The civil first appeal preferred by the defendant- Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.1990 was also dismissed by the learned first appellate Court on 27.04.1998. It was stated that despite his entitlement for regular pay scale w.e.f. 02.11.1987, i.e., on expiry of period of three years from the date of his first appointment, the defendants have extended it from 30.05.2002 vide order dated 03.06.2002 which was bad in law. Benefit of first and second selection scale on completion of 9 & 18 years of service counting his regular service from 02.11.1987 was also claimed. Therefore, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:57:29 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22300] (3 of 4) [CSA-44/2019] The defendants in their joint written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled for the regular pay scale prior to 30.05.2002 on account of bad service record. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014. However, the civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has been allowed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants is that while allowing the appeal, the learned appellate Court did not appreciate that the Depot Level Committee constituted by the defendant-Corporation has regularized the plaintiff's services w.e.f. 30.05.2002 on account of pendency of multiple charge-sheets against him which was never challenged. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 be restored.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court, would submit that since, no substantial question of law arises in the civil second appeal, it deserves to be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:57:29 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22300] (4 of 4) [CSA-44/2019] While dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the learned trial Court has held that since, the Depot Level Committee has regularized his services w.e.f. 30.05.2002 on account of pendency of multiple charge-sheets against him, he was not entitled for benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 02.11.1987. However, the learned appellate Court has, on the basis of decision of the defendant-Corporation dated 01.10.1994 directing the regularization of the services of the employees on daily wages on completion of three years of service, held that since, admittedly, the plaintiff had completed three years of services on 02.11.1987 with clean record, he was entitled for regularization and payment of regular pay scale from that date. Decision of the Depot Level Committee to grant regularization w.e.f. 30.05.2002 was held to be bad in law as prior to 02.11.1987, service record of the plaintiff was not found tainted. It has further been held by the learned appellate Court that charge-sheets are stated to be pending against the plaintiff from the year 1996 to 2002; but, it could not have come in way of his regularization w.e.f. 02.11.1987. Even the learned counsel for the defendants could not satisfy as to how these findings are bad in law. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned appellate Court did not err in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Since, no substantial question of law is involved in the civil second appeal, the same is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/74 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:57:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)