Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rajasthan State Road Transport … vs Kanhaiya Lal Gameti S/O Shri Hemraj on 21 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:16455]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 303/2019
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
----Appellants-Respondents
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal Gameti S/o Shri Hemraj, Resident Of Village Jassa Ji
Guda, Post Janawad, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand
(Raj) At Present Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Rajsamand Depot, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
—Plaintiff-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None Present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 21/04/2025
The present civil second appeal has been filed by the
appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the
judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed by Additional
District Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan City, (for short ‘the
appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 81/2017, whereby the
appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the
defendants, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2017
passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan City
(for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 224/2013, whereby the
trial court while partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-
plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’), held the plaintiff entitled to get
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16455] (2 of 7) [CSA-303/2019]
first selection scale from 18.12.1995 and second selection scale
from 18.12.2004. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get salary
on notional basis from the date of his termination i.e. 22.01.1993
to 11.04.2011 and thereafter he was held entitled to get actual
salary.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration to the effect that he was appointed with the
defendants-Corporation as a Conductor on daily wages basis vide
order No.1244 dated 25.05.1985. Thereafter, vide order No.4122
dated 26.12.1985, he was appointed on one year’s probation
period and granted the regular pay scale along-with other
allowances. Later on, his services were terminated. Subsequently,
vide Order No.5144 dated 18.12.1986, the plaintiff was appointed
afresh on one year probation period and was again granted
regular pay scale and other allowances. Thereafter, vide order
No.727 dated 12.03.1987, his services were terminated.
Against the said termination order dated 12.03.1987, the
plaintiff filed a civil suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) No.2, Jaipur City which was decreed in his favour on
16.02.1990 and he was directed to be continued in service
without any interference with all consequential benefits from the
date of termination. In compliance of the said order, the plaintiff
was re-instated in service in Udaipur Depot vide order No.252
dated 31.03.1990. Thereafter, vide order No.1166 dated
22.01.1993, the plaintiff’s services were again terminated. For
approval of said termination order, an application was filed by the
Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act
before the Industrial Tribunal, which was rejected by the Industrial
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16455] (3 of 7) [CSA-303/2019]
Tribunal vide order dated 03.02.2009. The defendants-Corporation
challenged the said order by filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13972/2009 in which a compromise was arrived at between
the parties on 18.02.2011. As per the compromise, the plaintiff-
workman shall relinquish the back wages and other monetary
benefits and accordingly the Corporation would take the plainitff
back in service within a month from the date of compromise and
the plaintiff’s services shall be continued and the salary and
allowances would be given to him from the date of his
reinstatement. On the basis of said compromise, the plaintiff was
taken back in service vide order No. 177 dated 11.04.2011. After
joining the duty by the plaintiff, the minimum pay scale was given
to him and his pay fixation was not done. So, the plaintiff filed a
suit before the trial court stating that as per the State
Government vide Finance Department’s order dated 25.01.1992,
he is entitled to get benefit of first and second selection scales on
completion of 9 and 18 years of his service from 18.12.1995 and
18.12.2004 respectively.
Defendants in their written statement mentioned that
initially, the plaintiff was appointed as a daily wage Conductor vide
order No.1244 dated 25.05.1985. Lateron, vide order No.4122
dated 26.12.1985 he was appointed on one year’s probation
period. Subsequently, his services were terminated but vide Order
No.5144 dated 18.12.1986, he was appointed on one year’s
probation period. Again his services were terminated vide order
No.727 dated 12.03.1987. Plaintiff was served different charge
sheet on account of his misconduct. Vide order No.252 dated
31.03.1990, he was taken back in service subject to decision
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16455] (4 of 7) [CSA-303/2019]
taken by the Head Office. Later on, due to his misconduct, his
services were terminated vide order No.1166 dated 22.01.1993.
For approval of the termination order, the defendants-Corporation
filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal which was rejected by
the Tribunal. The defendants-Corporation challenged the said
order by filing the writ petition before this court in which
compromise was arrived at between the parties. According to the
said compromise, the plaintiff was re-instated in service vide order
No.177 dated 11.04.2011. So, he is not entitled to get selection
scales on account of not completing 9 and 18 years of service.
On the basis of pleading of the parties, the trial court framed
following issues:-
(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get first and second
selection scale and A.C.P. after counting his length of service from
18.12.1986 and accordingly entitled to get his pay fixation done?
(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declared the pay
fixation order No.5399 dated 27.09.2011 as illegal?
(III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get done the notional pay
fixation from the date of termination i.e. 22.01.1993 till the date
of reinstatement i.e. 11.04.2011 and then entitled to get done the
actual pay fixation and after pay fixation also entitled to get the
difference amount of pay along-with interest thereon?
(IV) Whether the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the civil
suit?
(V) Relief?
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16455] (5 of 7) [CSA-303/2019]
To prove his case, the plaintiff-Kanhiyalal Gameti got
examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited certain documents. To
prove their case, the defendants got examined Dalchand as DW-1
and exhibited certain documents.
After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide its
judgment and decree dated 08.03.2017 while partly decreeing the
suit in favour of the plaintiff, held him entitled to get first selection
scale from 18.12.1995 and second selection scale from
18.12.2004. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get salary on
notional basis from the date of his termination i.e. 22.01.1993 to
11.04.2011 and thereafter he was held entitled to get actual
salary.
Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated
08.03.2017, the defendants filed an appeal before the appellate
Court. The appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
15.03.2019 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and
decree dated 08.03.2017 passed by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial
Court as well as appellate Court have committed error in deciding
the issue No. 4 against the defendants. Learned counsel for the
defendants further submits that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction
to try the suit because the case is related to industrial dispute and
only the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the
same.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the
trial Court as well as appellate court have committed an error in
granting first selection scale to the plaintiff from 18.12.1995 and
second selection scale from 18.12.2004. As per the compromise,
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16455] (6 of 7) [CSA-303/2019]
the plaintiff was not entitled to get any pay and allowances for the
termination period i.e. from 22.01.1993 to 11.04.2011. So, the
judgments and decree passed by the appellate Court as well as
the trial court are required to be set aside and this appeal be
admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the
memo of appeal.
Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of
the plaintiff.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments
and decree passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court.
It is an admitted position that termination order issued by
the defendant-Corporation against the plaintiff was set aside by
the Industrial Tribunal. The defendants challenged the said order
by way of filing writ petition before this Court in which
compromise was arrived between the parties. According to the
said compromise, the plaintiff was re-instated in services but back
wages and other monetary benefits of the termination period were
rejected to him. The trial Court while decreeing the suit, only
directed that the plaintiff is entitled to get first selection scale
from 18.12.1995 and second selection scale from 18.12.2004. The
trial Court in its judgment also observed that the plaintiff is
entitled to get salary on notional basis from the date of his
termination i.e. 22.01.1993 till 11.04.2011 and thereafter, he was
held entitled to get actual salary. So, in my considered opinion, no
ground is made out to admit the second appeal on the substantial
questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. So, the second
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16455] (7 of 7) [CSA-303/2019]
appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which
stands dismissed accordingly in limine.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/75
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link