HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3872/2025 Asharam (Senior Citizen) S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Datro, Tehsil Fathepur, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Churu Depot, District Churu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Meel JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to release the amount of overtime and Government holidays along with interest. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Dungav Ram vs. Shri Raj Hans Upadhyay and Anr while deciding S.B. Writ Contempt No.1027/2018 on 10.12.2024. Counsel submits that before submitting the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached the respondents for redressal of his grievance by way of filing a representation, but the same has not been (2 of 2) [CW-3872/2025] decided. Counsel submits that appropriate orders be passed by issuing directions to the respondents. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a liberty be granted to be petitioner to approach the respondent-authority, who will examine the matter on its merits in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dungav Ram (supra) and in case, the issue involved in the case of the present petitioner is covered by the said judgment, then the same benefits would be provided to him. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents again for redressal of his grievances by way of filing representation before the respondents and in case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same would be considered and decided by the respondents expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. 5. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/ order to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/13