Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 609 (RAJ)

Bhola Ram v. RSRTC

2014-03-04

VINEET KOTHARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner - workman Bhola Ram S/O Multana Ram was working as daily rated workman as Conductor in the respondent - RSRTC and was removed from the services on 21.4.1980. He filed a civil suit No.79/82 and under the decree dated 9.9.1986, he was directed to be reinstated back in service as his termination w.e.f. 21.4.1980 was held to be illegal. The petitioner was thus reinstated back after the respondent - RSRTC lost its appeal before the High Court also vide Annex.2 dated 25.6.1988 as daily wages Conductor and was posted in Khetdi Depot of respondent - RSRTC. He was also assigned the regular pay scale under the order Annex.1 dated 2.11.1998 w.e.f. 1.3.1983. 2. The controversy involved in the present case arose because of passing of order Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000 and recalling the previous order Annex.1 dated 2.11.1988, the respondent - RSRTC changed the date of regularisation to 2.11.1998. The respondents have sought to rely upon two Circulars in support of said Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000, namely, office order dated 31.3.1995 and office order dated 13.10.1997 produced with the reply to the writ petition, which has been filed today only. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Vyas has urged that the impugned order Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without any valid rhyme or reason and the respondents could not withdraw the benefits given to the petitioner in pursuance of decree of the Civil Court dated 9.9.1986 in civil suit No.79/1982 filed by him and the Circulars issued by the respondent - RSRTC are not applicable to the present petitioner and the respondents have not explained any relevance of the date 2.11.1998 in the present case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Bachhawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - RSRTC urged that the said Circulars permitted regularisation of daily wage workers only w.e.f. 1.10.1994 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated in the said office orders dated 31.3.1997 and 13.10.1997. He submitted that since the petitioner was reinstated back in service under Order Annex.2 dated 25.6.1988 only as daily wages workman/conductor, regularisation of his services would be governed by the Circulars/Orders dated 31.3.1995 and 13.10.1997, Annex.R/1 and R/2 respectively. He submitted that since the petitioner was reinstated back in service under Order Annex.2 dated 25.6.1988 only as daily wages workman/conductor, regularisation of his services would be governed by the Circulars/Orders dated 31.3.1995 and 13.10.1997, Annex.R/1 and R/2 respectively. He, therefore, submitted that mistake of the date in Ex.1 giving him the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.3.1983 was rectified by the impugned order Anex.4 and his regularisation was done in the services w.e.f. 2.11.1998 and therefore, the impugned order Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000 deserves to be upheld. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly the order Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and applying the aforesaid Circulars/orders dated 31.3.1995 and 13.10.1997. The petitioner was given the benefit of reinstatement back in service in the year 1988 in pursuance of decree in his favour on 9.9.1986. He was even given the regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.3.1983 vide office order Annex.1 dated 2.4.1998. Whether these Circulars issued by the respondent - RSRTC were applicable in the case of present petitioner or not, could only be determined after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which the respondent - RSRTC admittedly did not give. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Anil Bachchhawat has also not been able to explain the relevance of date 2.11.1998 before this Court when the said circular dated 31.3.1995 envisages the scheme of regularisation to be effective from 1.10.1994. Therefore, mentioning the date of 2.11.1998 stipulated by the respondents in the impugned order Annex.4 is not explained. The applicability of the present Circulars produced with the reply of the respondents admittedly cannot override and supersede the decree of the civil Court in individual case of the present petitioner in consequence of which Annex.2 admittedly was passed by the competent authority. The impugned order Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000 being apparently in breach of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The writ petition thus, deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annex.4 dated 18.4.2000 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.Petition allowed. *******