[2025:RJ-JP:21026] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 266/2018 Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot, Sriganganagar ----Appellant Versus Nand Ram S/o Shri Roop Chand, R/o 2-15, Shyam Nagar Second Old Aabdi, Distt. Sriganganagar, At Present Conductor Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sriganganagar Depot. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 26/05/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 06/2010, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 235/2006, whereby the trial Court while decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) held him entitled to get first selection scale of 9 years from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale of 18 years from 06.07.1997 and he was also held entitled to get his pay fixation done accordingly. [2025:RJ-JP:21026] (2 of 5) [CSA-266/2018] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants for grant of first selection scale of 9 years from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale of 18 years from 06.07.1997. It was also mentioned that on 28.06.1979, he was appointed as permanent Conductor in RSRTC and joined his duties on 06.07.1979. Later on, he was terminated from service on 19.06.1982. Against the said termination order, the plaintiff filed the suit before Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur which was decreed in his favour on 30.11.1983 and the termination order dated 19.06.1982 was declared illegal and null and void and the plaintiff was taken back in service. Thereafter, plaintiff again joined his duty. After that, he was again terminated vide order No. 30 dated 20.03.1987, against which, the plaintiff also filed a suit before the civil Court which was was decreed in his favour on 05.11.1988 and the termination order was quashed and set aside being illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the said order, the plaintiff had again taken back in service but his pay fixation was not done. He treated as continuous in service. Finance Department of State Government vide its order dated 25.01.1992 issued the instructions for granting first, second and third selection scales to the state government employees after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Defendants- Corporation accepted the said order and also granted the selection scales to their employees after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. It was submitted that since the plaintiff was appointed in the year 1979, therefore, he completed 9 years of service on 06.07.1988 and 18 years of service on 06.07.1997. Thus, as per [2025:RJ-JP:21026] (3 of 5) [CSA-266/2018] corporations regulations, he was entitled to get first selection scale of 9 years from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale of 18 years from 06.07.1997 with interest @ 18 % per annum but the defendants had not granted the said benefits to him. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that service record of the plaintiff was unsatisfactory. Various charge-sheets were issued to the plaintiff. So, he is not entitled to get first selection scale of 9 years from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale of 18 years from 06.07.1997, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on cost. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a declaration against the defendants to the effect that on completion of 9 and 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment, he is entitled to get first and second selection scales as per the rules and on that basis he is entitled to get his pay fixation done? (2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum on the remaining difference amount? (3). Whether the plaintiff had not paid court fees after calculating amount of arrears, therefore the suit was not maintainable? (4). Whether it being the industrial dispute, the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit? [2025:RJ-JP:21026] (4 of 5) [CSA-266/2018] (5). Relief? To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Nand Ram and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Mukesh Raj and exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2010, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held him entitled to get first selection scale of 9 years from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale of 18 years from 06.07.1997 and he was also held entitled to get his pay fixation done accordingly. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 05.05.2010 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit as well as in dismissing the appeal because services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory, as a result of which, he was given charge-sheets and punishments were also awarded to him. So, there was no ground to grant him first selection scale of 9 years service and second selection scale of 18 years service. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2010 passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and the appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that as per [2025:RJ-JP:21026] (5 of 5) [CSA-266/2018] the circular of the Corporation, minor penalty was not a bar for granting selection scales. So, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to get first selection scale of 9 years from 25.01.1992 and second selection of 18 years from 06.07.1997 and the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants is devoid of merit and no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal. So, the appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that plaintiff was terminated twice from the service by defendants but said termination orders were set aside by the competent civil Court and he was reinstated back in service. As per the circular, minor penalties awarded to the plaintiff were not bar for granting selection scales. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/97