Jaiveer Singh vs R.S.R.T.C. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 8416 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2947/2014

Jaiveer Singh S/o Shri Bhori Lal, aged about 38 years, by caste Rajput, Resident of 13/38 C/o Mukta Prasad Colony, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through the Chairman & Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation, Bikaner Depot, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation, Depot Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Avinash Acharya
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. P.R. Singh



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                      Order

29/06/2022

The present petition has been filed against the impugned

order dated 18.08.2011 and the appellate order dated

26.09.2011. Vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2011, the

services of the petitioner had been terminated on the premise that

he had breached the conditions of the contract and vide the

appellate order dated 26.09.2011 it has been informed to the

petitioner that his appeal is not maintainable in terms of the

Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees

Standing Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Standing

Orders") of the Department.

(2 of 5) [CW-2947/2014]

At the outset, it has been argued by counsel for the

respondents that the petitioner was a contractual employee and

therefore, the Standing Orders of 1965 would not apply to the

present petitioner. He therefore, submitted that the appellate

authority was right in holding that the appeal of the petitioner was

not maintainable.

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum-Conductor in

pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.02.2005 and he

continued to work on the said post till the first order of

termination dated 24.02.2010 was passed against him. The said

order of termination was passed against him on the premise that

there were six passengers found in his vehicle who were travelling

without ticket.

Aggrieved against the order dated 24.02.2010, the petitioner

preferred an original suit before the Civil Court and vide an interim

order dated 04.03.2010 the Civil Court directed that no action

against the petitioner would be taken without affording an

opportunity of hearing to him.

In pursuance to the interim order passed by the Civil Court,

a show cause notice dated 26.07.2011 was issued by the

Department to the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted in the

matter. On 29.07.2011, the inquiry report was submitted by the

inquiry officer who found the petitioner to be guilty. In pursuance

to the same the services of the petitioner were again terminated

on 18.08.2011. Against the said order an appeal was preferred by

the petitioner before the appellate authority which was not

entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the

standing orders governing the service of the employees of the

respondent Corporation do not apply to him.

(3 of 5) [CW-2947/2014]

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement

dated 16.02.2005 vide which the petitioner was appointed,

specifically provided that after completion of three years of

satisfactory services, the employee would be posted as a 'driver'

on a regular pay scale. He submitted that when the respondent

Corporation did not act upon the said condition of the

advertisement, many other similarly situated persons approached

this Court and vide judgment dated 19.01.2011 in the matter of

Shanker Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P.

No.7682/2009) the services of such employees were directed to

be regularized and the respondents were directed to grant regular

pay scale to such employees. The said judgment passed in

Shanker Lal's case (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench

in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.796/2011 (RSRTC

Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Shanker Lal & Ors.) decided on 07.12.2011

and further the SLP filed by the respondent Corporation before the

Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed on 13.04.2012.

Counsel submitted that after the passing of the judgment in

Shanker Lal's case (supra) an office order dated 13.01.2014

was passed by the Department itself vide which it was specifically

directed that all those employees who had been appointed in

pursuance to the advertisement of the year 2005 and who have

completed three years of satisfactory services would be

regularized on a regular pay scale. Therefore the petitioner can by

no stretch of imagination be considered to be a contractual

employee.

Counsel submitted that in the year 2011 when he had been

terminated, he had, already by virtue of law, attained the capacity

of a regular employee although no specific orders had been

(4 of 5) [CW-2947/2014]

passed by the Department till that date. He therefore argued that

the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the

standing orders of the Department would not apply to the

petitioner as he is a contractual employee, falls flat on the face of

it.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

A bare perusal of the ratio as laid down in Shanker Lal's

case (supra) makes it clear that the issue is no more res-integra

and admittedly, most of the employees of the respondent

Corporation appointed in pursuance to the advertisement dated

16.02.2005 have been regularized after completion of three years

of satisfactory service. Therefore, the present petitioner,

admittedly being a similarly situated employee, cannot be

considered to be a contractual employee as of date and the sole

argument raised by counsel for the respondents is hence, not

tenable. Resultantly, the communication dated 26.09.2011

(Annexure-10) issued by the appellate authority whereby it has

been held that the present petitioner would not be governed by

the standing orders of the respondent Corporation being totally

erroneous, deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for

decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. The appellate authority need not issue fresh notice to

the parties. It is directed that both the parties would remain

present before the appellate authority on 01.08.2022. The

appellate authority would decide the matter within a period of 3

months thereafter.

(5 of 5) [CW-2947/2014]

With the above observations and directions, the present writ

petition is disposed of.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 96-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)