Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C And Ors vs Amerjeet Singh on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 45/2018
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Sriganganagar, Depot.
3. Executive Directtor Admn. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Head Office, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Amerjeet Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh, R/o H-Block, Distt.
Sriganganagar Rajasthan, at Present Manager Traffic Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Bairwa
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 31/10/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : November _3rd, 2022
BY THE COURT:
The appellants-defendants Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (hereafter `the RSRTC') have preferred this second
appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 23-11-2017
passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan
City in first appeal No.12/2011 allowing appeal reversed the
judgment dated 9-5-2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan City in civil suit
No.143/2008 and decreed the suit for declaration for allowing pay
scale Rs.5500-150-9000 of the post of Traffic Inspector on
completion of service of 18 years and Rs.6500-200-10500 of the
(2 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
post of Depot Manager on completion of service of 27 years and to
pay arrears of differential amount with interest at the rate of 8%.
2. Facts as culled out from the record are that respondent-
plaintiff-employee (hereafter `the employee') filed a suit for
declaration challenging the order No.1272 dated 5-2-2003 and
claiming that pursuant to order of State Government dated 25-1-
1992 he was entitled for the pay scale Rs.5500-150-9000 of the
post of Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and
Rs.6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion
of service of 27 years and to pay arrears of differential amount
with interest at the rate of 18%.
2.1 The plaintiff stated in his plaint that he was initially
appointed on the post of booking clerk vide order dated 12-7-1968
and was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide
order No.1835 dated 1-2-1977 in the pay scale of 370-10-410-15-
530-20-590 and vide order No.619 dated 30-9-2003 he was
promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector in the pay scale of
Rs.5000-150-8000. On 25-1-1992 the State Government issued
circular dated 25-1-1992 granting selection pay scale to
employees on completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years. The
circular of the Government was approved by the RSRTC vide
resolution No.34/92 dated 29-3-1992 and made applicable to
employees of RSRTC vide order No.2971 dated 27-4-1993.
2.2 In aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff moved an application
before the RSRTC claiming pay scale Rs.5500-150-9000 of the
post of Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and
Rs.6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion
of service of 27 years and to pay arrears of differential amount
(3 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
with interest at the rate of 18%. But the application of the plaintiff
was rejected vide order No.1272 dated 5-2-2003. Therefore, the
plaintiff filed the suit challenging the impugned order dated 5-2-
2003 and claiming due benefits of selection scale on completion of
service of 18 years and 27 years.
3. On service of notice, defendants filed written statement and
stated that on completion of 18 years of service the plaintiff was
not entitled for the pay scale of the post of Traffic Inspector. It was
stated that in compliance of order dated 27-4-1993, whereby the
circular dated 25-1-1992 was made applicable, the plaintiff was
granted pay scale according to his post of booking clerk, on which
he was appointed. The plaintiff was not entitled for selection scale
on completion of 27 years of service. It was further stated that
vide order dated 8-2-2007 the plaintiff has been promoted to the
post of Depot Manager in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500.
The prayer was made to dismiss the suit.
4. On basis of pleadings of parties, four issues were framed.
Plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and exhibited 11 documents.
Defendants examined as Dw.1 Satya Narayan Sharma but no
document was exhibited.
5. The trial court considering evidence of both parties decided
issues No.1 & 2 against the plaintiff and the issue No.3 against
defendants and consequently the plaintiff's suit was dismissed
vide judgment dated 9-5-2011.
6. On filing first appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate court
considered the case. Considering the fact that the plaintiff was
awarded benefits of pay scale on completion of 18 years on 3-7-
1994 and on completion of service of 27 years on 9-7-1996 the
(4 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
amendment in the concerned circular on 5-2-2003 was not
applicable and therefore the plaintiff was entitled for the pay scale
Rs.5500-150-9000 of the post of Traffic Inspector on completion
of service of 18 years and Rs.6500-200-10500 of the post of
Depot Manager on completion of service of 27 years along with
arrears of differential amount with interest at the rate of 8%
instead of 18% as claimed. Accordingly, issues No.1&2 were
decided in favour of plaintiff. The issue No.3 regarding jurisdiction
of Civil Court was also decided in favour of plaintiff relying on
judgment dated 4-11-2016 in The Regional Manager RSRTC Vs.
Rajveer Singh, wherein it was held that if there is violation of
principles of natural justice than only civil court had the
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit was decreed with a
direction to defendants that pay scale Rs.5500-150-9000 of the
post of Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and
Rs.6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion
of service of 27 years be granted and arrears of differential
amount be paid with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of
filing the suit till payment of the amount.
7. Hence, this second appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for appellant RSRTC and perused
impugned judgment passed by court below.
9. It is not in dispute that respondent plaintiff was appointed on
the post of booking clerk vide order dated 12-7-1968 and the next
promotion post is Assistant Traffic Inspector, then Traffic Inspector
and thereafter Depot Manager. It cannot be disputed that pursuant
to circular date 25-1-1992, which was made applicable to
employees of RSRTC vide order dated 27-4-1993 plaintiff was
(5 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
entitled for selection scale of Rs.5500-150-9000 of the post of
Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and then
Rs.6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion
of service of 27 years. The plaintiff was accorded selection on
completion of 18 years of service on 3-7-1994 and on completion
of 27 years of service on 9-7-1996. Appellant on the basis of order
dated 5-2-2003 denied the grant of selection scale to the plaintiff.
This order does not apply to the case of plaintiff as it cannot be
given effect retrospectively. The first appellate court has rightly
held so. Counsel for appellant though made a persuasive attempt
that by virtue of order dated 5-2-2003 amendment has been
made to delete clauses 4(i)(ii)(iii) from the order dated 27-4-
1993, therefore, selection to plaintiff could not have been granted
for the next promotional post. But he could not satisfy as to how
and in what manner the order dated 5-2-2003 would have
retrospective effect. It may also be noticed that the order dated 5-
2-2003 is ex-parte order for non grant of selection scale to
plaintiff without affording any opportunity of hearing. As such
there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. It has not
been disputed and cannot be disputed that tenure of service of an
employee is to counted from the date of initial appointment. On
this basis of such factual matrix this court find that the first
appellate court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional
error in deciding issues No.1&2 in favour of plaintiff.
9.1 As far as issue No.3 regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court is
concerned, when it has been noticed that non grant of selection
scale to plaintiff is in violation of principles of natural justice, a
coordinate bench of this court in case of the Regional Manager
(6 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
RSRTC Vs. Gagan Kumar Jain [2017(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 584] held
that if there is violation of principles of natural justice then only
civil court had the jurisdiction.
9.2 The case of RSRTC Vs. Krishna Kant [(1995)5 SCC 75], relied
upon by counsel for appellant RSRTC, wherein the Apex Court held
that where disputes, even industrial disputes, involve reliefs based
on general law of contract, civil court has alternative jurisdiction,
as in the instant case the plaintiff claimed his right on the basis of
circular dated 25-1-1992, which was made applicable to RSRTC
vide order dated 27-4-1993. The RSRTC has denied such claim of
plaintiff on the basis of order dated 5-2-2003 applying it
retrospectively, which is clearly against principles of natural
justice. Thus the judgment in case of Krishna Kant (supra), rather
it supports the case of plaintiff and is against the plea of RSRTC.
9.3 Further the issue of jurisdiction of civil court and grant of
selection scale on completion of service 9, 18 and 27 years
pursuant to circular dated 25-1-1992 has been considered by
coordinate bench of this court in case of RSRTC Vs. Malu Ram
Raigar [SB Civil Second Appeal No.3/2010, decided on 31-
7-2017] and relying on judgments in case of RSRTC Vs. Mohar
Singh [2008(66) AIC 58 (SC)], RSRTC Vs. Bal Mukund Baira
[(2009)4 SCC 299] and RSRTC Vs. Bhonri Lal [SB Civil
Second Appeal No.2008/2011, decided on 17-7-2013] came
to the conclusion that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the
suit where question of legal rights of an employee arises, and that
for grant of benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and
(7 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
27 years of service, employees were entitled to receive their
salary in the pay scale of the post of promotion.
9.4 Therefore no substantial question of law, as suggested by
counsel for appellant in memo of appeal, does arise, nor there is
any other any substantial question of law in the instant appeal.
10. In case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari
[(2001)3 SCC 179] the Apex court held that "while reversing a
finding of fact the appellate court must assign its own reasons for
arriving at a different finding. An additional obligation has been
cast on the first appellate court by the scheme of the present
Section 100 substituted in the Code. The first appellate court
continues, as before, to be a final court of facts; pure findings of
fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in
second appeal. Now the first appellate court is also a final court of
law in the sense that its decision on a question of law even if
erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court in second
appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased
to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous
findings of the first appellate court even on questions of law unless
such question of law be a substantial one."
It has been further held by the Apex Court:-
"14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may
be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial
question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must
be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or
a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing
on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so
far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To
be a question of law involving in the case there must be
first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the
question should emerge from the sustainable findings of
fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary
to decide that question of law for a just and proper
(8 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the
first time before the High Court is not a question involved
in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It
will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of
each case whether a question of law is a substantial one
and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall
consideration being the need for striking a judicious
balance between the indispensable obligation to do
justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding
prolongation in the life of any lis."
11. In case of State Bank of India Vs. Emmsons
International Limited [(2011)12 SCC 174] the Apex Court
held that "first appellate court is required to consider all issues of
fact and law before setting aside judgment of trial court. First
appellate court is required to address itself to said issue which had
bearing on final outcome of the case".
12. In case of Jagannath Vs. Arulappa [(2005)12 SCC 303]
the Apex Court held that "court of first appeal can re-appreciate
the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion from trial
court".
13. In case of Arumugham Vs. Sundarambal [JT 1994 (4)
SC 464] the Apex Court has held that "the first appellate court is
entitled to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give
its own reasons for accepting that of on one side or the other, and
that it is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere
with such findings of facts by the first appellate court".
14. In case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan
Gurjar [(1999)3 SCC 722] the Apex Court held that "it is not
within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on
which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact, being
(9 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court
should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in
respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses
accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference
in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has
given satisfactory reasons for doing so".
15. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the first
appellate court shows that after due appreciation of evidence oral
and documentary the first appellate court has given its own
findings on each issues. The first appellate court considering
evidence of parties has come to a just finding regarding
application of the circular in issue. The first appellate court after
due appreciation of evidence oral and documentary has decided
issues in favour of plaintiff. The first appellate court, being final
court of facts and law, has not committed any illegality in
reversing the finding of the trial court.
16. The scope of second appeal is confined to examine
substantial question of law, which are sine qua non to exercise
powers under Section 100 of CPC. In case of Umerkhan Vs.
Bismillabi [(2011)9 SCC 684] Hon'ble Supreme Court has
propounded that "if a second appeal is admitted on substantial
question of law, while hearing second appeal finally, can re-frame
substantial question of law or can frame substantial question of
law afresh or even can hold that no substantial question of law
involved, but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction of
Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial question of law".
(10 of 10) [CSA-45/2018]
17. It is a case where no substantial question of law involved as
there is no perversity or material irregularity/ infirmity in the
judgment passed by the first appellate court. Accordingly, the
second appeal is not liable to succeed. Consequently, the same is
hereby dismissed.
18. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
