Dismissed

Nand Kishore Bathara v. the R S R T C Jaipur

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2026CW/7768/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of compulsory retirement imposed on a Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation employee. Finding the order not mala fide or punitive, the Court held there was no scope for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

Nand Kishore Bathara Vs the R S R T C Jaipur — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35305]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7768/2002

¶4

CNR: RJHC020221772002 | URN: CW / 11997U / 2002

¶5

Nand Kishore Bathara Son of Shri Satya Narain, Booking Clerk, Central Bus Stand, RSRTC, resident of Opp. Daulat Shah Baba ki Dargah, National Highway No.11, Chomu, District-Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, through the Managing Director, RSRTC, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pratibha Singh Ranawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Surendra Meel, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

02/09/2026

¶14

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 19.06.2002 passed by Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, whereby petitioner has been compulsory retired in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18D(1) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965.

¶15

While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that order is malicious in nature and has been passed while taking into consideration the penalty, if any, passed against the petitioner long back. In fact in recent past when the impugned order was passed, there was no penalty whatsoever in the service record of the petitioner. Learned

[2026:RJ-JP:35305]

[CW-7768/2002]

(2 of 3)

counsel submits that on the basis of record of the petitioner in late years of his service, it could not have been presumed by the respondent that the petitioner was not useful for the respondent's service, and the order of compulsory retirement is virtually punitive in the present case and has been passed without giving any due opportunity of hearing.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶21

This Court finds that petitioner has come out with a case in the writ petition as his services were satisfactory and only one order in disciplinary proceedings in the year 1975 was undertaken against the petitioner, in which also the petitioner was exonerated and not punished.

¶22

On the contrary while filing reply to the writ petition, the respondent has raised an objection that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with distorted and incomplete facts and the entire details of the penalties/charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been given in memo of writ petition. Along with reply, the respondent has enclosed Schedule-A, which reflects that as many as 17 penalties/charge-sheets were there against the petitioner and on the basis of such record, no error whatsoever has been committed by the respondent in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was a deadwood and was no longer useful for respondent's service.

¶23

It is a settled proposition of law that order of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be punitive in nature, as even after passing of such order, the employee is granted pension and other retiral benefits as admissible under the Rules.

¶24

[2026:RJ-JP:35305]

¶25

[CW-7768/2002]

¶26

Although, a vague allegation with regard to mala fides has been levelled in memo of writ petition, yet no details of any kind of mala fide or annoyance has been given in the memo of writ petition, nor has the petitioner placed any material on record to support such allegations.

¶27

In view of above, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the impugned order of compulsory retirement and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.

¶28

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶29

3/Jatin

Nand Kishore Bathara v. the R S R T C Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore Bathara v. the R S R T C Jaipur

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