[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jasvinder Singh vs The Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 16 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:12460]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5680/2026
Jasvinder Singh S/o Shri Jagraj Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Ward No. 01, Singhpura, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan Presently Posted As Driver At Rsrtc - Sardar Shahar
Depot.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Its Managing Director, Hq-Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), State Road
Transport Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Sardar Shahar Depot, Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Soni
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
16/03/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following reliefs:
"(i) The respondents are directed to pay the
arrears of salary to the petitioner and
continue to pay the regular salary to the
petitioner, by exempting 3000 kms driving.
(ii) 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."
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:17:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12460] (2 of 5) [CW-5680/2026]
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
as Driver under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(RSRTC) and joined at Sardar Shahar Depot, 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,
Respondent No.2 directed unit in-charges to enforce 3000 kms
monthly driving for drivers/conductors but exempted medically
unfit personnel via 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 under went
examination by multiple Medical Boards, all of which consistently
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.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:17:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12460] (3 of 5) [CW-5680/2026]
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.:
SBCWPNo. 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 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
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:17:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12460] (4 of 5) [CW-5680/2026]
the headquarters. If no representation is filed,
liberty is given to the petitioner to file fresh
representation within a period ofone 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."
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:17:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12460] (5 of 5) [CW-5680/2026]
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.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
5-Sumer/-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 07:17:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
