Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dhanna Lal Jat Son of Shri Hari Narayan

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2025WMAP/134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Misc application for modification of order directing refund of CPF amount with interest dismissed; directions for computation of interest and release of pension.

What did the court decide?

Direction to RSRTC to inform exact interest amount within four weeks; upon compliance, RSRTC to release pension under GPF Scheme forthwith. ¶¶36

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Dhanna Lal Jat Son of Shri Hari Narayan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No.134/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Review Petition No.89/2022

¶5

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12854/2017

¶7

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing, Director, Head Office Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶8

Financial Adviser Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶9

Chief Manager, Jaipur Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Distt. Jaipur.

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Dhanna Lal Jat Son Of Shri Hari Narayan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Post Chosla, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Kailash Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rajpal Dhankar

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

09/10/2025

¶18

By way of filing this misc. application, the applicant is seeking modification of the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Review Petition No.89/2022, by which the review petition submitted by the original respondentRSRTC was allowed and the original applicant-petitioner-Dhanna

¶19

[WMAP-134/2023]

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

Lal Jat was directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,31,722/- to RSRTC with interest @9% per annum.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the RSRTC has not awarded any interest on the other retiral dues to the applicant then under these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled to not pay any interest on the amount received under the CPF amount, i.e., Rs.8,31,722/-. Learned counsel submits that even on the said date, the RSRTC have not calculated the total interest payable on the aforesaid due amount, i.e., Rs.8,31,722/and the RSRTC has not started disbursing the regular pension of the applicant, hence, interference of this Court is warranted and the order passed by this Court is liable to be modified.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RSRTC opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that inspite of clear and specific direction issued by this Court, the applicant has not refunded the amount, so received under the CPF amount, i.e., Rs.8,31,722/- with interest as per the directions issued by this Court, hence under these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief or modification of the aforesaid order.

¶24

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the order dated 27.04.2023 was passed after hearing the detailed argument of both sides and this Court has passed the following observations and directions in Para 13 to 17, which reads as under:-

¶25

“(13)The only new ground raised by the petitioner RSRTC is that the respondent has received the final

¶26

[WMAP-134/2023]

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

amount of CPF amount i.e. Rs. 8,31,722/-, hence the respondent is not entitled to get pension under GPF Scheme. The other arguments have already been considered and taken into account at the time of disposal of the writ petition.

¶29

(14)It appears that amount of Rs. 8,31,722/- was directly transferred to the bank account of respondent at the time of his retirement without any information or sending any communication to the petitioner about the nature of such payment. The respondent is ready to refund this CPF amount to the petitioner RSRTC.

¶30

(15)The petitioner RSRTC has failed to make out any case of review of the order dated 1.12.2021. This court does not find any error on the face of the record to review the order. No case is made out to recall the order dated 1.12.2021. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

¶31

(16)In the light of above discussion and considering the statement of the counsel for the respondent, the respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,31,722/- to the petitioner RSRTC with interest @ 9% per annum within three months from today.

¶32

(17)With the aforesaid, the review petition along with the stay application, stands disposed of.”

¶33

It is the settled proposition of law that the miscellaneous application seeking modification of the order can be entertained if there is any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record and the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court is clear and specific that in case the applicant is seeking benefit of pension under GPF Scheme then certainly he is liable to refund the amount received by him under CPF amount along-with interest. If at all any delay has been caused by the RSRTC for release of the other retiral benefits to the applicant and if no interest has been granted to him on the aforesaid delayed payment then certainly the applicant is not remediless. The applicant is entitled to avail remedies available to him under the law for redressal of his grievances.

¶34

(4 of 4) [WMAP-134/2023]

¶35

This Court finds no error in the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court, which requires any modification/alteration.

¶36

Accordingly, the instant misc. application stands disposed of by issuing direction to the RSRTC to apprise the applicant about the exact interest amount, which is required to be deposited by him pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Court. 9. Needless to observe that the entire exercise would be undertaken by the RSRTC within a period of four weeks from today. In case, the order passed by this Court is complied with by both RSRTC and the applicant, the RSRTC would release the pension of the applicant under GPF Scheme forthwith without any further delay.

¶37

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶38

Karan/51

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dhanna Lal Jat Son of Shri Hari Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Dhanna Lal Jat Son of Shri Hari Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Ansari @ Naeem S/O Abdul Haq Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Singh Vs State

Mangi Lal Vs State and Ors.

Arti Wife of Dinesh Vs State of Rajastahn

Trilochan Singh S/O Baljeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Anita Sansi W/O Shree Vikas Sansi Vs State of Rajasthan