Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Krishana Murari S/O Shri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4724 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:22300]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 44/2019

1.       Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
         General Manager, Parivahan Marg Jaipur
2.       Chief       Manager         Rajasthan        State        Road     Transport
         Corporation, Dausa Depot (Rajasthan)
3.       Executive      Director       Rajasthan        State      Road     Transport
         Corporation, Jaipur Parivahan Marg Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Krishana Murari S/o Shri Verdhaman Singh Verma, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Village Madha (Kakola) District Dhaulpur Rajasthan
At    Present    Working        As    Conductor         Rajasthan         State   Road
Transport Corporation Dausa Depot Dausa (Raj)
                                                         ----Plaintiff-Respondent

For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. R.M. Bairwa
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Babu Lal Gupta with
                                  Mr. Ankul Gupta



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                       Order

12/09/2023

This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred

by 34 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.

For the reasons stated in the application (244/2019), which

is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, the same is

allowed. Delay in preferring the civil second appeal is condoned.

This civil second appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for

[2023:RJ-JP:22300] (2 of 4) [CSA-44/2019]

brevity "the learned appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal

No.3/2014 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the

respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), the

judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned

Upper Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur (for short "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil

Original Suit No.859/2003 for declaration, have been reversed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

declaration against the appellants/defendants (for brevity "the

defendants") stating therein that he was appointed as daily wager

Conductor by the defendant-Corporation vide order dated

02.11.1984. It was averred that his services were terminated vide

order dated 13.02.1985 which was set aside by the learned Civil

Court in a suit filed by him thereagainst vide judgment and decree

dated 04.08.1990 and the plaintiff was held entitled for

reinstatement with all consequential benefits with continuity of

service. The civil first appeal preferred by the defendant-

Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.1990

was also dismissed by the learned first appellate Court on

27.04.1998. It was stated that despite his entitlement for regular

pay scale w.e.f. 02.11.1987, i.e., on expiry of period of three

years from the date of his first appointment, the defendants have

extended it from 30.05.2002 vide order dated 03.06.2002 which

was bad in law. Benefit of first and second selection scale on

completion of 9 & 18 years of service counting his regular service

from 02.11.1987 was also claimed. Therefore, the decree as

aforesaid was prayed for.

[2023:RJ-JP:22300] (3 of 4) [CSA-44/2019]

The defendants in their joint written statement, denying the

averments made in the plaint, submitted that the plaintiff was not

entitled for the regular pay scale prior to 30.05.2002 on account

of bad service record. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed

for.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial

Court framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence

of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit

vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014. However, the civil

first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has been

allowed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree

dated 28.08.2018 and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been

decreed.

Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated

28.08.2018, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel

for the defendants is that while allowing the appeal, the learned

appellate Court did not appreciate that the Depot Level Committee

constituted by the defendant-Corporation has regularized the

plaintiff's services w.e.f. 30.05.2002 on account of pendency of

multiple charge-sheets against him which was never challenged.

He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the

judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 be quashed and set aside

and the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2014 be restored.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the

findings recorded by the learned appellate Court, would submit

that since, no substantial question of law arises in the civil second

appeal, it deserves to be dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

[2023:RJ-JP:22300] (4 of 4) [CSA-44/2019]

While dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the learned

trial Court has held that since, the Depot Level Committee has

regularized his services w.e.f. 30.05.2002 on account of pendency

of multiple charge-sheets against him, he was not entitled for

benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 02.11.1987. However, the

learned appellate Court has, on the basis of decision of the

defendant-Corporation dated 01.10.1994 directing the

regularization of the services of the employees on daily wages on

completion of three years of service, held that since, admittedly,

the plaintiff had completed three years of services on 02.11.1987

with clean record, he was entitled for regularization and payment

of regular pay scale from that date. Decision of the Depot Level

Committee to grant regularization w.e.f. 30.05.2002 was held to

be bad in law as prior to 02.11.1987, service record of the plaintiff

was not found tainted. It has further been held by the learned

appellate Court that charge-sheets are stated to be pending

against the plaintiff from the year 1996 to 2002; but, it could not

have come in way of his regularization w.e.f. 02.11.1987. Even

the learned counsel for the defendants could not satisfy as to how

these findings are bad in law. In view thereof, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the learned appellate Court did not err in

allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Since, no substantial question of law is involved in the civil

second appeal, the same is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/74

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)