Partly allowed

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopi Ram Balai S/O Shri Shrawan Lal Balai

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2021SAW/533/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the bonus marks awarded to a respondent for apprenticeship but modified the single judge's order. The court held that while the petitioner gets all consequential benefits, actual wages are not retroactive and commencement only from the date of actual service.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint petitioner with consequential benefits effective from date of similar appointments, except actual wages which start from date of actual engagement.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 533/2021

¶3

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

¶4

Member Secretary, Service Selection Board, R.s.r.t.c., Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

¶5

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Central Workshop, Makhupura, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gopi Ram Balai S/o Shri Shrawan Lal Balai, Village And Post Nangalbani, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Madhu Meena

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

18/11/2021

¶14

This appeal is filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2021. The respondent-original petitioner had appeared for selection to the post of Artisan Grade III (Diesel Mechanic) in SC category for which the Corporation had invited applications. The selection test was conducted in which the petitioner had secured 111 marks. Admittedly as per the policy of the Corporation two bonus marks would be given to a candidate who has done apprentice training with the Corporation. It is undisputed that petitioner had undertaken and successfully

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[SAW-533/2021]

¶17

completed the training. Only controversy is that whether the petitioner had produced such certificate at the time of trade test. The Corporation under the premise that such certificate was not produced, refused to give two bonus marks. The petitioner filed a writ petition contending that such certificate was produced despite which he was not given benefit.

¶18

Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment came to the conclusion that petitioner’s stand was correct. It was recorded that petitioner had made a representation and also provided photocopy of the certificate. The respondents stand was that the certificate could not be looked into. Significantly the learned Single had also called for the original records to which the Department contended that some of the records was destroyed by the termites. Eventually, the learned Judge rejected the stand of the Department that the petitioner did not submit the apprentice certificate by making following observations:-

¶19

“5. I have considered the submissions.

¶20

The petitioner has given out in his representation that he had earlier also provided a photo-copy of the apprentice certificate, thus he should be awarded two bonus marks for having done apprenticeship.

¶21

The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner’s apprentice certificate could not be looked into despite of the same being placed along with the application form, is not acceptable. Certificate of apprenticeship already on record, cannot be ignored.

¶22

7.The contention of the counsel for the respondent that at the time of trade test, the petitioner did not submit apprentice certificate, is also found to be not correct. As per the trade test, mark-sheet of Artisan Grade-III (Diesel Mechanic) placed before this court. It is apparent that there was no column relating to apprentice certificate at the time of trade test and the marks were given for Two hour task, Tool knowledge, Personality and trade skill. The additional marks relating to bonus on account of apprentice have been

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[SAW-533/2021]

¶25

noticed separately on the right side later on. Such marks which are noted later on, apparently are with reference to the application form. It is noticed that the marks are given by two different persons as it is apparent from the hand writing of “two” mentions in the right hand corner. Document relating to Bheevraj Raigar is taken on record.

¶26

Thus it is apparent that the petitioner’s candidature has been arbitrarily left out by not giving him the required bonus marks.

¶27

8.If in a pending writ petition the record relating to the selection is not kept safe and gets destroyed for one reason or the other.”

¶28

We have no hesitation in confirming the observations and findings of the learned Single Judge. The direction to give two bonus marks to the petitioner is therefore justified. It is not in dispute that after awarding two bonus marks the petitioner would have come within the select list. The direction for giving appointment to the petitioner from the date similarly situated persons have been appointed also needs no interference. However when the learned Single Judge had directed that petitioner would be given all consequential benefits, this portion requires modification. The petitioner would not get wages for the past period on the principle of no work no pay. For all other purposes the past period would be counted as having spent on duty.

¶29

In the result, while disposing of the appeal the judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified. Direction for appointment of the petitioner from the date when similarly situated candidates have been appointed is confirmed. Such appointment will be with all consequential benefits except for payment of actual wages which would start only from the date the petitioner has been actually engaged in service. This shall be done within a period of one month from today. If not so engaged the petitioner will start receiving salary from the end of the period of one month.

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[SAW-533/2021]

¶32

The appeal is disposed of.

¶33

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶34

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶35

KAMLESH KUMAR/N.Gandhi/2

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopi Ram Balai S/O Shri Shrawan Lal Balai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopi Ram Balai S/O Shri Shrawan Lal Balai

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

State of Rajasthan Vs Lok Manya Tilak College

Rajasthan Housing Board Vs Sunil Chaturvedi S/O Shri Ramesh Chand

Bhawani Shankar Son of Shri Jhabar Mal Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son of Sita Ram Sharma Vs the Director, Local Self Government Department

Sub Divisional Officer Vs Jagdish Prasad Sanwaria S/O Amilal