Rajasthan High Court
Rajaram Singh vs R S R T C Through M D And Others on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 99/2015
Rajaram Singh S/o Maan Singh, aged about 49 years, R/o Village
and Post Sihi, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. At
present Driver in Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, Bikaner
Depot.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur through
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur Bikaner Depot, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
05/07/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing judgment and decree
dated 12.12.2014 passed by Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur
Metropolitan in appeal No.01/2014, affirming the judgment and
decree dated 03.12.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division), No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.620/2009
whereby suit filed by plaintiff for declaration has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the record.
3. It appears from record that appellant-plaintiff was appointed
as Driver on daily wages w.e.f. 01.07.1997 by the Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). Thereafter, plaintiff continue
to be on daily wages and vide order dated 29.04.2008, his
services were regularized and plaintiff was fixed on the regular
(2 of 5) [CSA-99/2015]
pay of Rs.3000/- per month w.e.f. 28.01.2008 and was placed on
probation for a period of two years. Plaintiff instituted civil suit on
07.09.2009, claiming fixation of regular pay, w.e.f. 01.07.2000
instead of 28.01.2008. Plaintiff placed reliance on the circular
dated 31.03.2015 issued by RSRTC to the effect that if any
employee after his appointment, completes three years continuous
service satisfactorily, then he shall be given regular pay scale.
Plaintiff submits that from the date of his appointment i.e.
01.07.1997, after completion of three years he is entitled for
regular pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.2000. Hence, plaintiff prayed for a
declaratory relief that he is entitled for regular pay scale w.e.f.
01.07.2000 instead of 28.01.2008 and also sought declaration for
entitlement of differential amount with interest for the intervening
period.
4. It has come on record that after appointment of plaintiff as
daily wager on 01.07.1997, within a period of three years, plaintiff
was served with the charge-sheet (Exhibit- A3) and he was
penalized vide order (Exhibit- A4). The order of fixation dated
29.04.2008 (Exhibit- A8) itself clearly mentions that prior to
28.01.2008, plaintiff has been served with several charge-sheets
and proceedings on charge-sheets remained pending. Hence,
plaintiff's case for entitlement of regular pay scale on completion
of three years pursuant to circular of Corporation was not found
acceptable. Rather the trial Court observed that the Corporation
did not find services of plaintiff as daily wager satisfactory,
however, plaintiff was provided regular pay scale w.e.f.
28.01.2008. The first Appellate Court concurred with the fact
findings of the trial Court.
(3 of 5) [CSA-99/2015]
5. Counsel for appellant has argued that pendency of charge-
sheets do not dis-entitle plaintiff for grant of regular pay scale,
hence, both Court have committed perversity in not decreeing
plaintiff's suit as such second appeal be allowed and by setting
aside both impugned judgments and decree, plaintiff's suit be
decreed.
6. The trial Court has examined the plaintiff's case in context to
the circular of RSRTC and it has been observed that as per the
circular, if the corporation finds services of any employee
satisfactory for a continuous period of three years, after his
appointment, he shall be given regular pay scale. In the present
case, plaintiff has been served with several charge-sheets, what to
say about satisfaction of his services by the Corporation. On
consideration of such facts and evidence, the trial Court dismissed
the plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 03.12.2013.
7. Plaintiff has preferred first appeal thereagainst. The first
Appellate Court re-heard and re-considered the matter on record
as a whole and concurred with the findings of the trial Court and
dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.
8. Having heard counsel for appellant and on perusal of record,
this Court finds that plaintiff has not challenged the order dated
29.04.2008 (Exhibit- A10) whereby plaintiff was provided fixation
of regular pay w.e.f. 28.01.2008. In the order dated 29.04.2008,
it is clearly mentioned that prior to 28.01.2008, proceedings of
charge-sheets against plaintiff were pending, hence, he has not
been found entitled for regular pay scale. Plaintiff has not disputed
the issuance of charge-sheets by the Corporation and pendency of
inquiry of few of them. The contention of counsel for plaintiff is
(4 of 5) [CSA-99/2015]
that mere issuance of charge-sheet does not dis-entitle plaintiff
for grant of regular pay scale is not acceptable in this case. This
Court finds that two Courts below have examined the evidence
and have concluded the criteria, as per circular of the
Corporation, for fixation and grant of regular pay scale is that the
employer should be satisfied with services an employee. In the
present case, when it not disputed that plaintiff has been served
with several charge-sheets and proceedings were pending, he
cannot claim regular pay scale as of right. Moreso the plaintiff has
not challenged the order dated 29.04.2008, whereby regular pay
scale was given to plaintiff w.e.f. 28.01.2008. The fact findings of
both Courts below are based on appreciation of pleadings and
evidence. Hence, this is a case of concurrent findings and this
Court finds that no substantial question of law in such backdrop of
facts arise in this second appeal and no interference is required to
be made in fact findings recorded by Courts below.
9. It is a case of concurrent findings of facts, which even if
erroneous, cannot be disturbed in exercise of powers under
Section 100 CPC as has been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu
Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and
catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs.
Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521],
Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC
409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414],
Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434], State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC
595] and C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama
Reddy and Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial
(5 of 5) [CSA-99/2015]
questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not
liable to be entertained.
10. Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be devoid of
merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to
costs.
11. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.
12. Record of both Courts below be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /76
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
