Allowed

Sukhram Meena S/O Shri Shyam Lal Meena v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2020SAW/411/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divison Bench upheld an appeal allowing the appellant to challenge a stigmatic termination order via writ jurisdiction despite the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy. The court set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Impugned terminating order set aside; appellant reinstated within 30 days without back wages; respondents permitted to hold disciplinary inquiry.

Sukhram Meena S/O Shri Shyam Lal Meena Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 411/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9460/2015

¶5

Sukhram Meena S/o Shri Shyam Lal Meena, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village And Post Leely, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Alwar.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

The Executive Director (Traffic.), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Doongarpur Depot, District Doongarpur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi, Advocate

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

09/09/2020

¶15

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he had efficacious alternative remedy to raise an Industrial Disputes under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[SAW-552/2019]

¶19

by the appellant. In-fact, the termination order was stigmatic in nature as it has been stated that the integrity of the appellant was questionable. In similar circumstances, writ petition filed by a similarly situated employee-Sunita was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In an appeal (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.812/2017) filed by Sunita, Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.10.2017. The said order was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.09.2019.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the present case is covered by the decision given by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.812/2017 and as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶21

Order dated 24.10.2017 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.812/2017 reads as under:-

¶22

“1. Heard learned counsel for the

¶23

parties.

¶24

2. Vide impugned order dated 03/04/2017 the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the reasoning that the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

¶25

3. The order terminating services of the appellant, while the appellant was on probation, is clearly stigmatic inasmuch as it uses the expression that the integrity of the appellant was questionable. In the decision reported as 2008 WLC (Rajasthan) 485, Ram Gurjar versus RSRTC, a Division Bench of this Court noted that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court where termination was stigmatic and principles of natural justice were violated merely because there was an alternative remedy, was no ground to refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[SAW-552/2019]

¶28

4. In our opinion, directions which were required to be issued by the learned Single Judge, were the same as was directed by the Division Bench of this Court in aforenoted decision.

¶29

5. We dispose of the appeal setting aside the order dated 29/06/2015 terminating the appellant’s service. The appellant shall be reinstated within 30 days from today. She will not be entitled to any back wages. The respondents are permitted to hold a proper disciplinary inquiry against the appellant.”

¶30

Order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4894/2018 (I.A. No.

¶31

137225/2018) reads as under:-

¶32

“Heard learned counsel for the

¶33

parties.

¶34

We have perused the original office order in Hindi which uses the double negative to suggest that the integrity is questionable.

¶35

Thus, the impugned order being stigmatic in character, it cannot be treated as a simplte case of non-continuation of service during probation.

¶36

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of.”

¶37

In view of the above orders, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.12.2014 terminating the services of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service within 30 days from today. Appellant will not be entitled to any back wages. The respondents are permitted to hold a proper disciplinary inquiry against the appellant, if so advised.

¶38

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶39

(SABINA),J

¶40

Mohita/68

Sukhram Meena S/O Shri Shyam Lal Meena v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram Meena S/O Shri Shyam Lal Meena 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

M/S Padmavati Industries Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Nikhil Vijaykant Kudale, Son of Shri Vijaykant Shankar Rao Kudale Vs Union of India

Narender Kumar Son of Shri Mohan Lal Vs Union of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Dr. Pratima Mohan Kaushik W/O Dr. Shiv Sharan Kaushik

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Shri Ghasida Ram Meena

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Saroj W/O Shri Satyawan Arya