Partly allowed

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Rohitash Dhayal S/O Shri Jai Narayan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2023CW/1995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order directing the Petitioner Corporation to pay unpaid allowances to the Respondent. Citing Daulat Ram, the Court ordered reimbursement of dues subject to specific conditions regarding seniority and audit.

What did the court decide?

The Corporation is directed to reimburse the respondent's dues under specific conditions including seniority adjustment, audit, and deferred interest payment.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:29194]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1995/2019

¶4

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through President Chomu House Jaipur.

¶5

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

¶6

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Khetri Aagar, Distt- Jhunjhunu

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Rohitash Dhayal S/o Shri Jai Narayan, R/o Near Godwill Public School, Gothara Khetri Nagar, Distt- Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶13

13/10/2023

¶14

This petition has been submitted by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 05.12.2017 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner, Jaipur by which the application filed by the respondent under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947”) has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay the due allowances and payment of 5^th and 6^th Pay amount i.e. Rs. 18,17,520/- to the respondent.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent is not entitled to get any amount of allowances etc. even then, the application filed by him has been allowed. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

[2023:RJ-JP:29194]

[CW-1995/2019]

(2 of 3)

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent opposed the argument of the petitioners and submitted that the respondent is entitled to get the due amount of pay and allowances, hence the Labour Commissioner has not committed any error in directing the petitioners to pay the due pay and allowances.

¶20

Heard and considered the submission of the rival sides and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that while submitting reply to the application of the respondent, the petitioners have denied the averments of the application but has admitted that the respondent is entitled to get the due amount of pay and allowances of Rs. 18,17,520/-.

¶21

After considering the above reply submitted by the petitioners, the Labour Commissioner has allowed the application and has directed the petitioners to pay the due amount of Rs. 18,17,520/- to the respondent, hence the Labour Commissioner has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

¶22

At this stage the counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to financial constraint, the petitioners are not in the position to pay this huge amount to the respondent, so the petition be disposed of by passing any appropriate direction.

¶23

It is submitted by the counsel for the parties that the dispute raised in this petition may be adjudicated in the light of the direction issued in the case of Daulat Ram Vs. Chairman &

¶24

Managing Director, RSRTC & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶25

No. 9687/2015 decided on 01.10.2015.

¶26

This Court while deciding the case of Daulat Ram (supra) has directed as under:-

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:29194]

[CW-1995/2019]

“In this background, these writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The respondent Corporations directed to reimburse the entire dues of all its retired employees under all heads including retiral benefits, overtime, night allowance, earned leave etc. within a period of six months. The due amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment. The petitioners shall be at liberty to submit detailed representations to the concerned officers to settle the accounts and facilitate the assessment of dues at the earliest.

¶31

No order as to costs.”

¶32

In view of the above, this petition is also disposed of in the light of directions issued in the case of Daulat Ram (supra).

¶33

The above order shall be subject to following conditions:(i) While making the payment to the respondent, the petitioners shall take into account the corresponding seniority (on the basis of date of retirement) of all the retired employees.

¶34

(ii) In case, the petitioners find respondent’s case as emergent, payment may be made to him, out of the seniority in terms of the order dated 30.03.2017, passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 9127/2016.

¶35

(iii) The petitioners may defer payment of interest of gratuity for the time being, as observed in the proceedings dated 17.01.2020 in SBCWP No. 992/2018.

¶36

(iv) The petitioners are further directed to calculate the amount of true retiral dues of the respondent by getting an audit.

¶37

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

Ashu/29

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Rohitash Dhayal S/O Shri Jai Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri Rohitash Dhayal S/O Shri Jai Narayan

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

Ganga Prasad Meena Vs Union of India and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Rajendra Prasad Garg Andors Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Prabhu Singh Vs State and Anr.

Jasraj Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Balwan Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.