Allowed

Bhola Ram v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2014CW/2470/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petition and quashed an order passed without an opportunity of hearing. The court held that the order attempting to alter service regularisation dates in violation of a civil court decree and without hearing was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18.4.2000; allowed the writ petition.

Bhola Ram Vs Rsrtc and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2470/2001 Bhola Ram V/s RSRTC and ors.

¶2

Order dt: 4/3/2014

¶3

1/4

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶5

AT JODHPUR

¶6

ORDER

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2470/2001

¶8

Bhola Ram V/s RSRTC and ors.

¶9

Date of Order

¶10

::: 4^th March , 2014

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶13

Mr.Sanjay Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Bachchhawat, for the respondents.

¶14

BY THE COURT :

¶15

The petitioner – workman Bhola Ram S/O Multana Ram was working as daily rated workman as Conductor in the respondent – RSRTC and was removed from the services on 21.4.1980. He filed a civil suit No.79/82 and under the decree dtd.9.9.1986, he was directed to be reinstated back in service as his termination w.e.f. 21.4.1980 was held to be illegal. The petitioner was thus reinstated back after the respondent – RSRTC lost its appeal before the High Court also vide Annex.2 dtd.25.6.1988 as daily wages Conductor and was posted in Khetdi Depot of respondent – RSRTC. He was also assigned the regular pay scale under the order Annex.1 dtd.2.11.1998 w.e.f. 1.3.1983.

¶16

The controvrsy involved in the present case arose because of passing of order Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000 and recalling the previous order Annex.1 dtd.2.11.1988, the respondent – RSRTC

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2470/2001 Bhola Ram V/s RSRTC and ors.

¶18

Order dt: 4/3/2014

¶19

2/4

¶20

changed the date of regularisation to 2.11.1998. The respondents have sought to rely upon two Circulars in support of said Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000, namely, office order dt.31.3.1995 and office order dt.13.10.1997 produced with the reply to the writ petition, which has been filed today only.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Vyas has urged that the impugned order Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without any valid rhyme or reason and the respondents could not withdraw the benefits given to the petitioner in pursuance of decree of the Civil Court dtd.9.9.1986 in civil suit No.79/1982 filed by him and the Circulars issued by the respondent – RSRTC are not applicable to the present petitioner and the respondents have not explained any relevance of the date 2.11.1998 in the present case.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – RSRTC urged that the said Circulars permitted regularisation of daily wage workers only w.e.f. 1.10.1994 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the said office orders dtd.31.3.1997 and 13.10.1997. He submitted that since the petitioner was reinstated back in service under Order Annex.2 dtd.25.6.1988 only as daily wages workman/conductor, regularisation of his services would be governed by the Circulars/Orders dtd.31.3.1995 and 13.10.1997, Annex.R/1 and R/2 respectively. He, therefore, submitted that mistake of the date in Ex.1 giving him the

¶23

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2470/2001 Bhola Ram V/s RSRTC and ors.

¶24

Order dt: 4/3/2014

¶25

3/4

¶26

benefot of regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.3.1983 was rectified by the impugned order Anex.4 and his regularisation was done in the services w.e.f. 2.11.1998 and therefore, the impugned order Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000 deserves to be upheld.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly the order Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and applying the aforesaid Circulars/orders dtd.31.3.1995 and 13.10.1997. The petitioner was given the benefit of reinstatement back in service in the year 1988 in pursuance of decree in his favour on 9.9.1986. He was even given the regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.3.1983 vide office order Annex.1 dtd.2.4.1998. Whether these Circulars issued by the respondent – RSRTC were applicable in the case of present petitioner or not, could only be determined after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which the respondent – RSRTC admittedly did not give. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Anil Bachchhawat has also not been able to explain the relevance of date 2.11.1998 before this Court when the said circular dtd.31.3.1995 envisages the scheme of regularisation to be effective from 1.10.1994. Therefore, mentioning the date of 2.11.1998 stipulated by the respondents in the impugned order Annex.4 is not explained. The applicability of the present Circulars produced with the reply of the respondents admittedly cannot override and supersede the decree of the civil Court in individual case of the present petitioner in consequence of which Annex.2 admittedly

¶28

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2470/2001 Bhola Ram V/s RSRTC and ors.

¶29

Order dt: 4/3/2014

¶30

4/4

¶31

was passed by the competent authority. The impugned order Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000 being apparently in breach of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The writ petition thus, deserves to be allowed.

¶32

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annex.4 dtd.18.4.2000 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.

¶33

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶34

ss/10

Bhola Ram v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Ram v. Rsrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Sharwan Ram Saran Vs Raj. State Road Tran. Corpn. and Ors.

Smt. Sampi Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Niranjan Kumar Bohra and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

State of Raj. Vs Manak Chand and Anr.

State of Raj. Vs Smt. Budhwanti and Anr.