Dismissed

Hanuman Singh andORS v. R S R T C and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2016CW/12767/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an order appointing petitioners as conductors. The bench held that the appointment was in compliance with a Division Bench judgment which directed appointment at the bottom of the list without reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it goes against the directions given by the Division Bench in the petitioners' own case.

Hanuman Singh andORS Vs R S R T C and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12767/2016

¶5

Hanuman Singh S/O Shri Rameshwar Dayal, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village and Post Koearana, Tehsil Behror, Distric Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶6

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Badalu Ram, aged about 31 years, Resident of Shahjadpur Ki Dhanni Post Sayarda Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Ramveer S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Dhulmana Kalan, Post Jalawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Head Office Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶11

Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Head Office Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶12

¶13

Chief Manager Baran Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, District Baran.

¶14

Respondents

¶15

Date of Order : 23.09.2016

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶17

Mr. Kailash Choudhary, for the petitioner/s.

¶18

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22.7.2015, appointing the petitioners on the post of Conductor w.e.f. 30.01.2015. The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of petitioner himself. To summarise the controversy, it would be relevant to refer the previous litigation.

¶19

The respondent-corporation conducted selection in the year 2012 for the post of Conductor. After declaration of result, certain objections were made but without deciding it, the order of appointment were issued. The result of the selection was revised, which affected the merit position of the petitioners. They were ousted from

¶20

the merit list and, consequently, termination of service was effected. The

¶21

¶22

petitioners preferred a writ petition to challenge the order of termination and it was finally decided by the Division Bench. The following directions were given by the Division Bench, which are quoted thus:-

¶23

“6. All the Special Appeals are, consequently, allowed. The orders, by which the services of the appellantspetitioners were terminated, are set aside. The appellants however will not be reinstated in service. They will be given appointment letters and will be placed at the bottom of the select list,after the last appointee in the selections of the revised list, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23.03.2012. As the appellants-petitioners are still working in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court, the pay and allowances, which they have drawn before their re-appointment, shall not be recovered back from them.”

¶24

The order of termination of service was

¶25

¶26

set aside but direction for reinstatement was not given. The direction was to give appointment letter to the petitioners and to be placed at the bottom of select list after the last appointment in pursuance to the revised list. The recovery of the salary paid during the period of interim order was not allowed. The respondents have carried out the directions given by the Division Bench and, accordingly, petitioners have been appointed again. It is on the same terms as exist in the case of others i.e. on fixed salary for a period of two years.

¶27

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order issued in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench.

¶28

The prayer of the petitioners is to treat them in service without break and thereby consider it to be a case of reinstatement. The prayer aforesaid cannot be accepted as it goes against the directions given by the Division Bench in petitioners own case. This court cannot issue direction contrary to what has been given by the Division Bench in the case of the petitioners themselves.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that after the revised list, the

¶30

¶31

appointments were made in the year 2013 and thereafter no appointment order was given other than to the petitioners or similarly situated person.

¶32

In view of the above, no reason exist to cause interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶33

Sunita/231

Hanuman Singh andORS v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Singh andORS v. R S R T C 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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manni Bai and Others

Amit Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sita Ram Meena and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Shri Harj Dece Lrs Ors. Vs Shri Rod Singh Dece Lrs andANR

A C T O Jaipur Vs M/S Anil Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Pratap Singh Vs Sharwan Kumar Regar and Others