[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ved Prakash vs The Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 25 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10197]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4813/2026
Ved Prakash S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 59 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 1, Mahal Bas, 25 Jsn, Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Choumu
House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing
Director.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Administrative Officer (Mechanical), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Hanumangarh Depot, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Purohit for Mr. Harish
Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
25/02/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following reliefs:
"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, may kindly be
please to declare the impugned act and action of withholding
salary of the petitioner by respondent no. 4 Chief Depot
Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Hanumangarh Depot, District, Hanumangarh, illegal, arbitrary
and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent RSRTC department to reinstated to full salary of the
petitioner and respondent department also directed to
prevented of any unfair action of salary withholding.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10197] (2 of 4) [CW-4813/2026]
(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in case salary
has been withhold during the pendency of this writ petition, the
same is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @
18% per annum, from the date of withholding salary till the date
of payment.
(iv) any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court considers just and proper and fact and
circumstance of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.
(v) cost of writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
as Driver under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(RSRTC) vide order dated 24.04.2003 (Annex.1) and joined at
Sriganganagnar, performing driver duties with a valid license until
2025 when a decreasing vision and chronic migraine; the Medical
Board recommended light duties, leading to his reassignment to
Traffic Managment at Rawatsar Branch at Banswara Depot. Vide
circular dated 09.10.2025 (Annex.3), Respondent No.2 directed
unit in-charges to enforce 3000 kms monthly driving for
drivers/conductors but exempted medically unfit personnel via
SMS Hospital examination; despite this, the petitioner--medically
unfit--faced periodic transfers to route duties, daily duty charts
assigning him driving, and salary withholding for non-compliance
due to health reasons, prompting this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was appointed as Driver in the respondent Corporation.
Subsequently, on the Medical Board's opinion declaring him unfit
for driving duties, he was reassigned to office/civil duties.
4. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner underwent
examination by multiple Medical Boards, all of which consistently
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10197] (3 of 4) [CW-4813/2026]
found him unfit for driver duties, leading to successive postings on
civil duties and despite these valid reassignments remaining in
force and without any communicated order to the contrary, the
respondents have withheld the petitioner's salary. He thus seeks
appropriate relief from this Court.
5. Learned counsel petitioner submits that the issue involved in
the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Coordinate
Bench decision dated 16.12.2025 in the case of Azaz Ahmad Vs.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.: SBCWP
No.24014/2025.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner's medical unfitness led to salary withholding, however,
learned counsel is not in a position to refute the fact that the issue
involved herein is squarely covered by order passed in the case of
Azaz Ahmad (supra).
7. Having considered the submissions and perused the
judgment passed in the case of Azaz Ahmad (supra), this Court
finds the Coordinate Bench has authoritatively addressed the
precise issue: respondents cannot withhold salary absent a
specific, communicated order, even where an employee performs
civil duties post-medical reassignment.
8. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs from Azaz
Ahmad (supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"8. This Court also found that there is no justification for the
respondents to withhold the salary of the petitioner when
there is no specific order in this regard. As long as the
petitioner is discharging his duties in the civil post as per the
orders passed by the respondents, they are duty bound to
extend the salary unless any other specific order is in force
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:52:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10197] (4 of 4) [CW-4813/2026]
withholding the salary which has been communicated to the
petitioner.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the
present writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
i. The respondent No. 3 - Chief Manager, Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Abu Road Depot is directed to
forward the representation of the petitioner, if any filed, to the
headquarters. If no representation is filed, liberty is given to
the petitioner to file fresh representation within a period of
one week from today.
ii. The headquarters shall fix the date and time for
appearance of the petitioner before the fresh medical board
and such date and time shall be intimated to the petitioner.
iii. On such intimation, the petitioner shall positively appear
before the medical board on the fixed date and time.
iv. If the petitioner fails to appear before the medical board
on the fixed date and time without any reasonable cause, the
respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action.
v. After medical examination of the petitioner, if the
medical board finds the petitioner unfit to perform driver
duties, the petitioner shall not be assigned driver duties and he
shall be assigned other duties.
vi. Till the report is submitted by the fresh medical board,
the petitioner shall be allowed to continue the work that he is
already discharging.
vii. Additionally, the respondents are directed to pay the
arrears of salary to the petitioner and continue to pay the
regular salary till a proper decision is taken on the opinion of
the fresh medical board.
viii. Liberty is given to the respondents to seek recall with
regard to the direction to pay the salary to the petitioner if any
specific order to withhold the salary was passed in accordance
with law."
9. In view thereof, the present writ petition stands disposed of
with identical directions as in Azaz Ahmad (supra), which are
already quoted in the just preceding paragraph.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/282-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 04:52:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
