[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Radheshyam Purohit ... on 13 January, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:1805-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 778/2025
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Director (Admin), Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation, Jaipur.
3. Cheif Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Phalodi.
----Appellants
Versus
Radheshyam Purohit S/o Shri Bachraj, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Behind Satyanarayan Temple, Maliyo Ka Bas, Phalodi, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
13/01/2026
The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 428 days.
An application for condonation of delay has been filed alongwith
the appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants on
application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of the
appeal.
3. Briefly narrated facts of the present appeal are that the
respondent was working on the post of Conductor and while
working as such, he was granted 2nd selection grade. The
Department started recovery from the respondent on account of
the fact that he was wrongly granted 2 nd selection grade. The
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 05:03:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1805-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-778/2025]
respondent preferred a writ petition against the order of recovery
which has been allowed by the learned Single Bench vide order
dated 06.12.2023 relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) & Ors. reported in 2015 4 SCC 334. Hence,
the present appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted
that the order of recovery has correctly been passed as the
respondent was not entitled for the 2nd selection grade from the
date of which he was granted. Learned counsel for the appellant
however, fairly submitted that there was no misrepresentation on
part of the respondent for getting 2 nd selection grade. Learned
counsel for the appellant is not in a position to refute the
submissions with respect to the judgment relied upon by the
learned Single Bench in case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellants and gone through the relevant record of
the case.
6. Admittedly, the respondent was working on the post of
Conductor and he was granted 2nd selection grade by the
appellants. There was no misrepresentation on part of the
respondent for getting the 2nd selection grade. Since the recovery
order was issued without affording any opportunity to the
respondent on the basis of an audit report, therefore, he
approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition and the
same was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2023 relying upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors.
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 05:03:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1805-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-778/2025]
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated
06.12.2023 does not suffer from any infirmity.
8. In view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in
the appeal itself. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the
delay of 428 days in filing the present appeal.
9. Consequently, the application as well as the appeal stand
dismissed.
10. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
29-T.Singh/-
(Uploaded on 13/01/2026 at 05:03:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
