Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C And Ors vs Prakash Chand Kataria on 28 November, 2023
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023:RJ-JP:36062]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 24/2018
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Phalna Depot
3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Anoopgarh Depot
----Appellants
Versus
Prakash Chand Kataria S/o Shri Kundan Lal Kataria, B/c Kataria,
R/o House No. 135, Infront Of Marudhar School, Mangal Vihar,
Poultry Farm, Agra Road Jaipur At Present Assistant Statistical
Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Udaipur
Zone Udaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. M. Bairwa, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 28/11/2023
This second appeal has been filed by the appellants-
defendants (for short 'the defendants') under Section 100 CPC
against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2017 passed by
Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for
short 'the appellate court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.16/2012
(CIS No.221/2014), whereby the appeal filed by the defendants
has been dismissed and affirmed judgment and decree dated
29.05.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)
No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Civil
Original Suit No.173/2010, whereby the suit for declaration filed
[2023:RJ-JP:36062] (2 of 3) [CSA-24/2018]
by the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') has been
partially decreed.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial
court as well as the appellate court had committed error in
partially decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the
appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants
also submits that the plaintiff was appointed on the post of
Computor on 06.12.1977 and he was allowed first selection scale
on completion of 9 years of service on 20.10.1993 and on
completion of 18 years of service, he was granted second selection
scale on 11.09.1997 and after that, on completion of 27 years of
service, he was granted third selection scale in the pay scale of
Rs. 6500-200-10500 but plaintiff wrongly claimed that he was
entitled to get second selection scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 on
completion of 18 years of service of the promotional post of
Statistical Officer and pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 on
completion of 27 years of service of the next promotional post of
Assistant General Manager. Learned counsel for the defendants
also submits that as per the service conditions, plaintiff was not
entitled to these pay scales but learned court below wrongly
decreed the suit. So, judgment and decree of the trial court as
well as appellate court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that the plaintiff was granted first selection scale on 20.10.1993.
At that time, he was running in the pay scale of Rs.5000/-. On
completion of 18 years of service, he was granted second selection
scale in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs.6500-200-
[2023:RJ-JP:36062] (3 of 3) [CSA-24/2018]
10500. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that after
completion of 27 years of service, plaintiff was entitled to get pay
scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 of the next promotional post of
Assistant General Manager. So, the trial court rightly decreed the
suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also
submitted that defendants' witness DW1-Jagdish Jain deliberately
gave evasive reply in the cross-examination. Defendants
corporation had adopted the circulars dated 27.04.1993 and
07.05.1998 issued by the State Government. So, present appeal
be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that there is no evidence that
plaintiff was not entitled to get second and third selection scales
as per the circulars dated 27.04.1993 and 07.05.1998 issued by
the State Government. Defendants corporation had given
promotion and selection scale as per the said circulars to other
persons. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as
first appellate court had not committed any error in decreeing the
suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal.
Therefore, no substantial question of law, as suggested by
learned counsel for the defendants in the memo of appeal does
arise. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
