Rajasthan High Court
R S R T C And Anr vs Sukhadeo on 16 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:2324]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 267/2018
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot.
----Appellants
Versus
Sukhadeo S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Hiram Baba Ka Mandir,
Birdhari, Panch-E-Choti, Distt. Sriganganagar Rajasthan At
Present Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Sriganganagar Depot Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 16/01/2024
The appellants-defendants (for short 'the defendants') have
preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and
decreed dated 14.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge
No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the appellate court') in Civil
Regular Appeal No.6/2012, whereby the appeal filed by the
defendants has been dismissed and while affirming the judgment
and decree dated 05.05.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior
Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur Metropolitan
(for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.53/2008, decreeing the
respondent-plaintiff's (for short 'the plaintiff') suit for declaration,
the plaintiff has been held entitled to receive 6% interest on due
salary till its payment.
[2024:RJ-JP:2324] (2 of 4) [CSA-267/2018]
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for
declaration wherein it was mentioned that he was appointed as
Conductor on 01.07.1979. On the basis of false allegations vide
order dated 17.3.81, the plaintiff's service was terminated.
Plaintiff challenged the said termination order by filing a civil suit.
The said suit was decreed in plaintiff's favour and the termination
order was declared null and void being contrary to the principle of
natural justice and he was held entitled to salary and other
benefits from the date of termination. Despite that, the plaintiff's
pay fixation was not done. The plaintiff again filed the suit for
declaration to the effect that he was entitled to first, second and
third selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of
service w.e.f 25.01.1992, 01.07.1997 and 01.07.2006
respectively.
Defendants filed the written statement and submitted that
plaintiff was not entitled to the first, second and third selection
scales with effect from the aforesaid dates because his service
preceding 7 years was not satisfactory. So, plaint filed by the
plaintiff be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court
framed four issues.
To prove its case, plaintiff examined himself. Defendants
examined DW1-Satyanarayan and exhibited documents as Ex.A1
to Ex.A18.
Trial court vide judgment dated 05.05.2012 decreed the
plaintiff's suit and directed the defendants to grant him first
selection scale on completion of 9 years of service w.e.f.
25.01.1992, second selection scale on completion of 18 years of
[2024:RJ-JP:2324] (3 of 4) [CSA-267/2018]
service w.e.f. 01.07.1997 and third selection scale on completion
of 27 years of service w.e.f. 01.07.2006. The plaintiff was also
held entitled for his pay fixation and to get the difference amount.
Defendants challenged the judgment passed by the trial
court by way of an appeal. The first appellate court vide judgment
dated 14.02.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants,
affirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2012 passed by
the trial court and awarded 6% interest to the plaintiff on due
salary till its payment.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial
court as well as appellate court committed an error in entertaining
the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants
also submits that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
suit because dispute between plaintiff and defendants is covered
under the Industrial Dispute Act. So, judgments of the trial court
as well as appellate court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa in
Civil Appeal No.328/2005 decided on 12.01.2009.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff, so
principle of natural justice was violated. The plaintiff's pay fixation
was not done, whereas he was entitled to first, second and third
selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service
from the aforesaid dates. So, civil court had only jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. So, appeal be dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JP:2324] (4 of 4) [CSA-267/2018]
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 the plaintiff's pay fixation was
not done and no opportunity of hearing was granted to him. Thus,
principle of natural justice was violated. So, the civil court had
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So, present appeal being
devoid of merit deserves dismissal as no substantial question of
law as suggested by counsel for the defendants in the memo of
appeal does arise nor there is any other substantial question of
law in the instant appeal.
The Civil Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /AVG/129
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
