Onkar Singh Vs the Managing Director Rsrtcandanr

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:5703]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14046/2009

¶4

Onkar Singh S/o Shri Banta Singh, V.p.o. 51-Gb-45-Gb, Tehsil Vijay Nagar, Distt. Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Anoopgarh Depot, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal with Mr. Aditya Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Taruna

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 06/02/2026

¶12

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the termination order dated 28.11.2007.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was selected for the post of driver pursuant to the letter dated 30.01.2002 and was appointed as driver vide Annexure- 2 dated 08.04.2002. It is contended that the petitioner's services were terminated without affording him an opportunity of hearing and only a notice was issued. The said action of the respondent is against the principle of natural justice.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench passed in the matter of Ramraj Gurjar Vs. RSRTC in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.896/2007 decided on 22.04.2008. It is also contended that even if it is presumed that the petitioner was a contractual

[2026:RJ-JP:5703]

[CW-14046/2009]

(2 of 3)

employee then also the termination of the petitioner is against the provisions of labour law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment of Sudarshan Rajpoot Vs. UPSRTC (2015)2 Supreme Court Cases 317 , in Civil Appeals Nos.10353-54/2014, decided on 18.11.2014.

¶19

Contrarily, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the nature of appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual and not against any regular post. The petitioner was appointed only as a contractual employee and as per the standing orders, there was no requirement for the respondents to issue notice before terminating his services. It is also contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to submit his reply regarding various acts of misconduct, which are evident from notice dated 08.12.2007. Despite repeated notices, the petitioner never responded and the last notice itself records several instances of misconduct committed by him time to time. It is also contended that the judgment of Division Bench passed in Ramraj Gurjar (Supra) is not applicable, as it pertains to appointments on temporary posts. It is also contended that the petitioner has not claimed unfairly treatment of termination in violation of provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. Rather, the petitioner has claimed himself to be an appointee against the post of driver. Therefore, the subsequent prayer made during course of arguments is not sustainable, hence, the writ petition deserves dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Annexure-2 clearly shows that the petitioner was engaged only on a contract basis and was not appointed as a regular employee of the respondents. As per the standing orders

[2026:RJ-JP:5703]

[CW-14046/2009]

(3 of 3)

applicable for the employees of the RSRTC and contractual employees, there is no provision for initiating disciplinary inquiry before termination. If the services of a contractual employee are found unsatisfactory, then the department has every right to terminate such contractual appointment. In the present case, the notice dated 08.12.2007 along with other notices records several incidents of misconduct by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply and it was duly considered and thereafter, his contractual employment was terminated vide order dated 28.11.2007. The judgment of Ramraj Gurjar (Supra) pertains to termination of an employee of RSRTC who was appointed against a temporary post and is therefore not applicable to the present case. The petitioner has not specifically pleaded violation of the Industrial Dispute Act, nor has sought any prayer in that regard, rather the petitioner has shown himself to be an appointed employee for the post of driver, therefore, in the absence of any prayer and specific pleading, the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.

¶26

Upshot to the above, the writ petition is not sustainable, hence dismissed.

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

Keshav/48

Onkar Singh v. the Managing Director Rsrtcandanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Singh v. the Managing Director Rsrtcandanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Vs R N G E I T Jaipur and Ors.

Bhavika Suiwal D/O Pawan Kumar Saini Vs Shri Siddharth Mahajan

Priyanka @ Annu W/O Sanni Vs the State of Rajasthan

Arjun @ Baba S/O Shri Purushotam Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Keli Devi W/O Late Sh. Moduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar S/O Shr Prahlad Ray, Vs Juikar Prateek Chandrashekhar (Ias)