Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chairman vs Kalu Ram Sharma (2025:Rj-Jd:4032-Db) on 22 January, 2025

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Madan Gopal Vyas

[2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB]                   (1 of 8)                       [SAW-1074/2024]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1074/2024

Kalu Ram Sharma S/o Shri Dev Kishan Sharma, Aged About 73
Years, Resident Of Gujjar Flour Mill Ke Pas, Shrinath Kiran Store,
Ward No. 17, Gorvadhan Villas, Udaipur, (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Coroporation,
         Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       Managing Director, Chariman, Rajasthan State Road
         Transport Coroporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan,
         Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 808/2024
1.       Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
         Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport
         Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                      Versus
Kalu Ram Sharma S/o Shri Devi Kishan Sharma, Through Branch
President, Parivahan Nigam Sanyukt Karamchari Federation,
Udiya Pole, Bus Stand Premises, Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Respondent
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 818/2024
1.       Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
         Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport
         Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                      Versus
Banshi Lal S/o Shri Tara Shanker Paliwal, Resident Of Gogunda,
District Udaipur (Raj.)- Through-Branch President, Parivahan
Nigam Sahayak Karamchari Federation, Udiya Pole, Bus Stand
Premises, Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Respondent
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1073/2024
Banshi Lal S/o Shri Tara Shankar Paliwal, Aged About 74 Years,
Resident Of Gogunda, District Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Appellant


                       (Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 09:49:10 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB]                   (2 of 8)                       [SAW-1074/2024]


                                      Versus
1.       Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Coroporation,
         Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj).
2.       Managing Director, Chariman, Rajasthan State Road
         Transport Coroporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan,
         Marg, Jaipur (Raj).
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Divik Mathur
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Avin Chhangani with
                                  Ms. Prenal Lodha


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

22/01/2025 The matter comes up on applications (IA No.01/24) under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same are

allowed. The delay in filling the appeals is hereby condoned.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed for final

disposal of the matter.

In D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 1074/2024 & 808/2024:-

1. The instant appeals have been preferred challenging the

order dated 13.05.2024 passed by learned Single Bench of this

Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13648/2022 (Chairman,

RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Kalu Ram Sharma).

2. The employee was appointed as a Conductor on 2 3.01.1973

in the department of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

(RSRTC). The appellant was compulsorily retired from the service

vide order dated 16.10.2001, in terms of Rule 18-D(1) of the

RSRTC Standing Order, 1965 ('Standing Order of 1965'). The State

[2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-1074/2024]

Government issued a Circular dated 03.12.2002, whereby the

employees, who have been compulsorily retired, were allowed to

submit their representation for reconsideration before the

Governor of the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter, repeated

representations were filed by the employee and when no order

was passed on the same, the employee preferred S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.6045/2007 (Kalu Ram Sharma vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) but the same was dismissed by a learned

Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.09.2009, while

giving liberty to the employee to avail appropriate remedy.

3. The employee raised the industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer and the same was referred for adjudication

before the Labour Court vide notification dated 26.03.2015, the

same culminated into a reference which was decided by the

learned Labour Court vide impugned judgment and award dated

13.04.2022 in Case No.10/2015.

4. The said award was challenged by the employer - RSRTC by

filling the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13648/2022 (Chairman,

RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Kalu Ram Sharma), whereby, the impugned

order/award dated 13.04.2022 was modified (vide order dated

13.05.2024) only to the extent that the workmen would not be

entitled to get the salary for the period he did not work, based on

the principal of "no work, no pay". However, the employee's

services deemed to be continued w.e.f. 16.10.2001 till his due

date of retirement. Learned Single Bench also made the employee

entitled to the notional benefits qua the said period, which

includes revision of his pension. The other retiral benefits were

also directed to be accordingly considered without granting the

[2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-1074/2024]

actual benefits for the period to which the employee has not

discharged his services and if the said amount could not be paid

within a period of three months, the employee shall be liable to

get interest of 6% of per annum.

5. Mr. Divik Mathur, learned counsel for the employee submits

that once the order of compulsory retirement has been set aside

and there is no fault or lacuna on the part of the employee due to

which he could not join his services, then it calls for grant of all

the consequential benefits of continuity for the period he did not

work. He further submits that the order of compulsory retirement

was bad in the eye of law, and thus, all consequential benefits

ought to have fallen out of the relief granted to the employee. He

submits that the employee had a long career in which he actually

discharged services from his appointment on 23.01.1973 to his

compulsory retirement on 16.10.2001, and thus, his actual

services rendered are of about 27 years.

6. Mr. Avin Chhangani, learned counsel for the employer-RSRTC

assisted by Ms. Prenal Lodha submits that there is a long suffering

from delay and latches on the part of the employee to have taken

his remedy, and thus, the relief granted has to be withdrawn and

the employee has to be declared not entitled for any kind of relief,

may be even notional for the period during which he had not

discharged his services. He further submits that a long duration

has passed since the order of the learned Labour Court after the

compulsory retirement, and thus, the time lapse in between is

sufficient for not granting any consequential benefits of

employment to the present employee. He also submits that the

earlier writ petition was disposed of on 13.05.2024, and thus, no

[2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-1074/2024]

benefit of the continuity of adjudication of the cause of action can

be given to the present employee. He further submits that the

employee's seeking parity with other employees could not have

been granted and the same has rightly been dealt with by the

learned Single Bench as the requisite material for the other

employees' similarity/parity with the present employee has not

been made out.

7. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties finds

that the Labour Court in its judgment and award dated

13.04.2022 has dealt with the factual matrix at length and has

found that the procedure required for the compulsory retirement

under the Standing Order of 1965 has not been rightly followed.

The learned Labour Court found that the continuity of agitation

was there on the part of the employee, and thus, he was required

to be granted all relief for the period, which he has not discharged

his services.

8. However, this Court finds that the ground of delay could not

absolutely made out because the State Government itself had

asked compulsorily retired employees to approach the Governor

vide its Circular dated 03.12.2002 and thus, the employee's

approaching the Governor rolled down the ball for agitation

against the compulsory retirement order. In between the

employee also preferred a review petition in 2004 and a writ

petition in 2007; and also gave multiple representations and it is

an undisputed fact that in pursuance of the State Government

Circular dated 03.12.2002 no order has been passed by the

Authority of Governor.

[2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-1074/2024]

9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the employee has

rendered his services from 23.01.1973 to 16.10.2001, which is

about 27 years of his actual service. The reasons given by the

learned Single Bench in the order dated 13.05.2024, while dealing

with the issues of similarly situated employee, the punishment

imposed, the merits of the order of compulsory retirement, the

stages in which the employee was agitating his cause, relying

upon the judgment rendered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das

& Ors. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors.;

(1992) 2 SCC 299 and the reasoning given recording satisfaction

in the award of learned Labour Court and modifying the relief does

not call for any interference of this Court from either sides.

10. In view of the aforesaid observations, the special appeal

(writ) is dismissed.

In D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 818/2024 & 1073/2024:-

1. The parties jointly submits that the impugned order under

challenge in these appeals are almost same as that of the appeal

of Kalu Ram Sharma Vs. Chairman, Rajasthan State Road

Transport Coroporation & Anr. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.

1074/2024), as they both were employees on same pedestal and

were suffering from compulsory retirement order, which were

interfered with by the learned Labour Court and then modified by

the learned Single Bench. The operative portion of the decision

rendered in the case of Kalu Ram Sharma (supra), reads as

follows:-

"7. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties finds that the Labour Court in its judgment and award dated 13.04.2022 has dealt with the factual matrix at

[2025:RJ-JD:4032-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-1074/2024]

length and has found that the procedure required for the compulsory retirement under the Standing Order of 1965 has not been rightly followed. The learned Labour Court found that the continuity of agitation was there on the part of the employee, and thus, he was required to be granted all relief for the period, which he has not discharged his services.

8. However, this Court finds that the ground of delay could not absolutely made out because the State Government itself had asked compulsorily retired employees to approach the Governor vide its Circular dated 03.12.2002 and thus, the employee's approaching the Governor rolled down the ball for agitation against the compulsory retirement order. In between the employee also preferred a review petition in 2004 and a writ petition in 2007; and also gave multiple representations and it is an undisputed fact that in pursuance of the State Government Circular dated 03.12.2002 no order has been passed by the Authority of Governor.

9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the employee has rendered his services from 23.01.1973 to 16.10.2001, which is about 27 years of his actual service. The reasons given by the learned Single Bench in the order dated 13.05.2024, while dealing with the issues of similarly situated employee, the punishment imposed, the merits of the order of compulsory retirement, the stages in which the employee was agitating his cause, relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Ors. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors.; (1992) 2 SCC 299 and the reasoning given recording satisfaction in the award of learned Labour Court and modifying the relief does not call for any interference of this Court from either sides.