Disposed

Deen Dayal Saini S/O Shri Richpal Saini v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC9 Aug 2019CW/10866/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions regarding non-payment of overtime and holiday benefits by RSRTC employees. Directions were issued for the Corporation to conduct an audit to verify entitlement and make payments within six months of receiving the audit report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Corporation to conduct audit and make payments of overtime, Gazetted Holidays, and weekly rest within six months of receiving the audit report.

Deen Dayal Saini S/O Shri Richpal Saini Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10866/2019

¶3

Deen Dayal Saini S/o Shri Richpal Saini, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Badabas, Dhani Bhuteshwar, Post Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected with

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12488/2019

¶11

Abdul Aziz S/o Shri Abdul Hakim, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Sarwad, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶15

Chief Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bhilwara Depot, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi Adv.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶19

09/08/2019

¶20

The grievance raised in the writ petition of the petitioners are in respect of certain payments which are not made to them on

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CW-10866/2019]

¶23

account of over time and Government Holiday and other consequential benefits.

¶24

Counsel submits that the similar controversy has been decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9060/2019 (Goverdhan Singh Vs. RSRTC & Anr.) & other connected petitions dt. 7^th August, 2019.

¶25

The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Goverdhan Singh Vs. RSRTC & Anr. (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-

¶26

“The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who were working as Conductor/Driver in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioners have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance raised in the present writ petitions is in respect of non-payment of overtime, weekly rest and Gazetted Holidays.

¶27

Counsel submitted that the aforesaid payment has not been given to the petitioners and even they have requested the Corporation by submitting representation as well as by sending legal notice, however, the Corporation has not released the due amount to the petitioners.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt. 28^th September, 2015 has decided the similar issue in identical writ petition- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14748/2014 (Prahlad Singh Vs. The Managing Director, RSRTC & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions, wherein directions have been given to the Corporation to make payment to the employees and as such six months time was given to the Corporation to make payment.

¶29

Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that the claim made in the present writ petition is required to be first examined by the Audit Team of the Corporation. Counsel submitted that the Audit Team has to verify with respect to entitlement of the claim of the petitioners and only after getting the report from such Audit Team, the Corporation is required to make payment. Counsel submits that the payment of overtime, Gazetted Holiday and weekly rest

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CW-10866/2019]

¶32

cannot be claimed as a matter of right and if the petitioners are found to be working, the Corporation will take necessary action to release such payments after getting approval.

¶33

I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

This Court finds that the respondents-Corporation may carry out the necessary audit in respect of claim of the petitioners & if the petitioners are found to be entitled for payment of overtime, Gazetted Holidays and weekly rest, the Corporation should make necessary payment to them.

¶35

This Court further finds that the necessary exercise after getting report from the Audit Team may be undertaken by the Corporation and the payment should be made within a period of six months after receipt of report from the Audit Team.

¶36

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Office is directed to place a copy of this order separately in each file.”

¶37

Counsel for the respondents-Mr. Vinayak Joshi Adv. submits that the Corporation is required to be first examined by the Audit Team and after verifying the facts, Corporation will take necessary action to release such payments after getting approval.

¶38

This Court disposes of the present writ petitions, by giving direction to the respondents-Corporation that the necessary exercise after getting report from the Audit Team may be undertaken by the Corporation and the payment should be made within a period of six months after receipt of report from the Audit Team

¶39

Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed separately in each file.

¶40

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶41

Monika/2-3

Deen Dayal Saini S/O Shri Richpal Saini v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deen Dayal Saini S/O Shri Richpal Saini v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Prasad Kumbhar Son of Shri Kishan Lal Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Prasad Sharma Son of Late Shri Chote Lal Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Makkhan Lal Saini Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Urmila Devi W/O Shri Dharam Pal Malhotra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Gopal Sharma S/O Shri Shyam Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Priyanka Saini D/O Ratti Ram Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan