Dismissed

Shyam Lal Sharma S/O Sh. Girraj Prasad Sharma v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2022SAW/277/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This divisional bench dismissed the special appeal against an order upholding the dismissal of a writ petition by Bus Sarthi employees. The court held that contract employees do not have parity with regular conductors and relied on a co-ordinate bench judgment to dismiss the claim for salary shortfall.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed with consequential disposal of pending applications.

Shyam Lal Sharma S/O Sh. Girraj Prasad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.277/2021

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.195/2021

¶5

Shyam Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Girraj Prasad Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Duhar Chaugan, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶6

Kanharam Yadav S/o Sh. Leelaram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Khohari, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Jaipur, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director.

¶10

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Matsya Nagar Depot, Alwar (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi, Advocate

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

22/04/2022

¶16

This special appeal has been filed by the appellants – petitioners (for short, ‘the appellants’) against the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.195/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were appointed as ‘Bus Sarthi’ in Rajasthan State Road

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[SAW-277/2021]

¶20

Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) on contract basis. He further submits that the Corporation introduced the Bus Sarthi Scheme by inviting the applications from the candidates and gave appointments accordingly, but at that time they did not impose the condition of deducting the difference amount from the salaries of the appellants, if the appellants give less income as compared to the income fixed by the Corporation. However, the corporation illegally deducted the difference amount, but learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter while dismissing the writ petition and misinterpreted the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Versus Jagjit Singh & Ors, reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 .

¶21

On the other hand Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi, Advocate appearing for the Corporation submits that there is no sanctioned post of ‘Bus Sarthi’ in the Corporation. If there would have been any post of ‘Bus Sarthi’ being available in the Corporation, the appellants could have been granted minimum of the pay scale of the post of ‘Bus Sarthi’/Conductor. The appellants were engaged on contract basis in the Corporation with the condition that their salaries would relate to the income generated by them for which targets were laid down. He further submits that the similar controversy has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2021 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.133/2020 titled Budharam Khatana vs. The Chief Manager, RSRTC, Khetri Depot, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) , whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17751/2016. He has

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[SAW-277/2021]

¶24

supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶25

Heard. Considered.

¶26

Indisputably, the appellants were engaged as ‘Bus Sarthi’ in RSRTC on contract basis. The appellants have not been appointed as ‘Bus Sarthi’ through regular mode of selection. In this way of the matter, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that there is no sanctioned post of ‘Bus Sarthi’ in the RSRTC. The engagement of the appellant as ‘Bus Sarthi’ on contract basis with the RSRTC was on the condition that their salary would relate to income generated by them, for which targets were laid down. They cannot claim themselves in any manner for any parity with regularly selected candidates (Conductors) of the Department. The findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are just and proper.

¶27

In view of above and in the light of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.133/2020, Budhram Khatana (supra), we find no force in this appeal and the same being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶28

Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶30

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶31

KuD/18

Shyam Lal Sharma S/O Sh. Girraj Prasad Sharma v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal Sharma S/O Sh. Girraj Prasad Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Balai S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Satish Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Kundan Mal Sharma Vs Income Tax Officer

Dinesh Kumar Jalan S/O Raj Kumar Jalan Vs Income Tax Officer

Madan Lal Sharma S/O Shri Sita Ram Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mr Gajanand Agarwal S/O Shri Sita Ramagarwal Vs Income Tax Officer

Shveta Devi W/O Shri Pappu Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan