Disposed

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. the Judge

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2022CW/5685/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ challenging reinstatement was futile as the workman was reinstated in 2003, served till superannuation, and died. The court directed the Corporation to process the widow's retirement benefits grievance within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Corporation directed to decide widow's retirement benefits grievance within three months and pay if due within four weeks.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5685/1991

¶4

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

General Manager (Operation), Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶6

Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner.

¶10

Legal Representatives of Late Shri Bheru Singh:

¶11

2/1. Guman Kanwar W/o Late Sh. Bheru Singh, aged about 64 years, By caste Rajput, Resident of Village Rajasar Choriya, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Poonia

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶15

Order

¶16

11/07/2022

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 23.01.1991 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the claim was allowed in favour of the claimant-workman. Vide the award, the claimant was directed to be reinstated in service although the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was confirmed.

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present writ petition, an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was moved and the same was

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-5685/1991]

¶21

allowed on 28.02.1996. An appeal being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.229/1996 was preferred by the petitioner-Corporation against the said order which was dismissed on 02.02.1997. After the dismissal of the said appeal, the petitioner-Corporation took a decision on 10.07.2003 to reinstate the workman and consequently, he was reinstated in the year 2003. Since then, the workman continued to serve the Department and superannuated on 31.03.2014. On 17.09.2015, the workman expired and therefore, an application for substitution of his legal representatives was moved and the same was allowed. As of date, the present petition is contested by the widow of the deceased-workman.

¶22

As it is clear on record that the petitioner-Corporation had already reinstated the workman in the year 2003 and he continued to serve till the date of retirement, the challenge to the order directing reinstatement of the workman has lost its efficacy now. Moreover, the workman served till his date of superannuation and has now even expired, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the award under challenge does not require any consideration at this stage because of the subsequent events.

¶23

However, it is made clear that the respondent-widow of the deceased- workman would be at liberty to move a detailed representation before the petitioner-Corporation raising all her grievances pertaining to the retirement benefits of the deceasedworkman. The petitioner-Corporation is directed to decide the same within a period of three months of the same being filed. If it is found that any retiral benefits of the deceased-workman are

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-5685/1991]

¶26

due, the same be released to the widow of the deceased-workman within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶27

With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶29

18-T.Singh/-

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. the Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. the Judge

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

Rajwant Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Samdani Vs State and Ors.

Balkishan Sankhla Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Chhangani Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan