Bhagat Singh Saharan vs The Rajasthan State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4769 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015767] (1 of 2) [CW-19065/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19065/2022

1. Bhagat Singh Saharan S/o Shri Nihal Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Nethrana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)

2. Rajesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Sukhdev Bairwa, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Modiyala, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Rajasthan)

3. Ramu Dan S/o Shri Karni Dan, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Near Hotel Pitashri, Indrira Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur

3. Chief Depot Manager, Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh Depot, District Hanumangarh.

4. Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot, District Tonk.

5. Chief Depot Manager, Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, Bikaner Depot, District Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Shekhawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

17/05/2023

1. Mr. Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the respondent -

Corporation submits that prayer for which the petition has been

[2023/RJJD/015767] (2 of 2) [CW-19065/2022]

preferred has been refused by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court

vide its judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed by Jaipur Bench of

this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sharma Vs.

RajasthanState Road Transport Corporation & Ors. : S.B.

Civil WritPetition No.24/2020 and the same has been affirmed

by Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated

12.01.2022 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2020 : Ram

Kumar Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation & Ors.

2. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to

distinguish the facts of the present case with the above

judgments, however, this Court hardly finds any distinction.

3. In view of the aforesaid and following the above referred

judgments, the present writ petition is dismissed.

4. The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 121-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)