[2025:RJ-JP:17883] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8073/2015 Chaturbhuj Jangid S/o Shri Jagannath Jangid, Village Itawa, Post Joula, Distt. Sawaimadhopur, Presently Working As Conductor At Bundi Depot. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., HQR., Chomu House, Jaipur 2. The Executive Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., HQRS., Chomu House, Jaipur 3. The Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., HQRS., Chomu House, Jaipur 4. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami & Ms. Dhriti Sharma on behalf of Mr. Kunal Rawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anamika Arora HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/04/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with following prayers: (I) this Hon’ble Court may graciously places to allow the present Writ Petition; (ii). By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to grant one increment i.e. from 01.07.2006 which has been left over by the respondents along with all other consequential benefits. (iii). By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to issue the re-fixation order of the petitioner by adding one more increment which has fallen due between the dated 01.01.2006 and the increment dated 01.07.2007. (iv). by an appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to stop the deduction of CPF [2025:RJ-JP:17883] (2 of 5) [CW-8073/2015] from the salary of the petitioner and accept his option for GPF Pension Rules, 1989 with immediate effect as the petitioner submitted his option well within the stipulated time as envisaged under the different notifications of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he was appointed on the Post of Conductor in the year 1980 and continued to work on the aforesaid post till 13.04.1991. However, by leveling unfounded charges, earlier he was placed under suspension and chargesheet was issued to the petitioner and after enquiry vide order dated 30.03.1996, services of the petitioner were terminated. After termination, an application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 was filed by the respondent-Corporation before the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal. However, in such application earlier vide order dated 29.10.2001, the Labour Court held the enquiry as unfair and subsequently vide order dated 28.06.2010 the application under Section 33 (2)(b) was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Aradhana Swami stated that the order passed by the Labour Court were put to challenge by the respondent by way of filing two different writ petitions No. 10393/2011 and 3066/2012, which were disposed of vide common order dated 13.01.2014 passed by this Court on the basis of settlement between the parties, in the manner, that the petitioner- workman would be reinstated by the Corporation, however, he would not claim back wages and wages up to the date of his joining. The reinstatement shall be made within the period of one month and the workman shall be entitled for notional benefit of fixation, if he was in regular pay scale and not otherwise if he was a daily wages employee. He would also be entitled to continuity in service. [2025:RJ-JP:17883] (3 of 5) [CW-8073/2015] 4. Learned counsel further submits that in compliance of aforesaid order dated 13.01.2014 passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner, the respondents issued reinstatement order dated 21.03.2014 and the petitioner joined services on 02.04.2014. 5. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation issued one order dated 06.08.2014 for granting benefit of notional fixation of pay, however, while issuing such order, the respondent omitted to grant one increment arising as on 01.07.2006. 6. Further grievance of the petitioner is that although on the very next day of joining that is on 03.04.2014, the petitioner submitted an application requesting the respondent-Corporation to stop deduction of CPF from his salary and to accept option form under GPF Pension Rules, 1989, however, such option was not accepted by the respondents. Hence, under these circumstances, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying from grant of one increment arising on 01.07.2006 and to issue refixation order accordingly as well as for directing the respondents to accept his option for GPF. 7. On receiving notices of the writ petition, the respondent- Corporation has filed reply to the writ petition revealing therein that so far as annual grade increment arising as on 01.07.2006 is concerned, the respondent have already issued an order dated 10.10.2014 whereby the increment prayed for by the petitioner arising as on 01.07.2006 has already been released and accordingly refixation order has been issued. 8. So far as submitting option for GPF is concerned, the respondents in their reply have submitted that as per notification dated 15.06.1996, cut off date was issued for submitting such option and the incumbents were required to submit their option by [2025:RJ-JP:17883] (4 of 5) [CW-8073/2015] 15.08.1996. Since, the petitioner utterly failed to submit his option within the prescribed time, hence, he has no right to claim any such benefit at this stage. 9. I have considered the submission and perused the material available on record. 10. As regards prayer Nos.(ii) & (iii) of the writ petition, in view of the above, where benefit of one grade increment arising as on 01.07.2006 has already been granted and refixation order has been issued by the respondent-Corporation, the prayers (ii) and (iii) made by the petitioner in the writ petition have been rendered infructuous as no cause of action qua such prayer is in existence. 11. So far as prayer with regard to accepting option for GPF is concerned, this Court examined the notification dated 15.06.1996 issued by R.S.R.T.C, requiring the employees who are desirous of having GPF benefits to submit their option. Although normal cut off date was 15.08.1996, yet, as per Clause 8 of the notification dated 15.06.1996, in case any employee was either out of country or on leave, deputation or under suspension up to 15.08.1996, then in such cases, the option can be granted within the period of 30 days from the date of resuming the duties. 12. In the instant case, as stated hereinabove, after termination of services, the petitioner resumed services on reinstatement only on 02.04.2014 and on the very next day i.e. on 03.04.2014 option was submitted by the petitioner. Hence, in view of above Clause 8 of Notification dated 15.06.1996 it cannot be said that the option given by the petitioner was delayed. 13. One of the objection raised by the respondent in reply to the writ petition is that the option submitted by petitioner was not in [2025:RJ-JP:17883] (5 of 5) [CW-8073/2015] prescribed form, however, such an objection is quite hyper-technical in nature and the application submitted by the petitioner on 03.04.2014 could have been taken as option form and if not then the respondents could have asked the petitioner to submit the option in prescribed form. 14. Be that as it may, the writ petition qua prayer No. IV stands allowed, the respondents-Corporation is directed to issue the option form to the petitioner within the period of 30 days and in case the option form for opting GPF Pension Rule 1989 is received by the petitioner within the period of 30 days, then thereafter, he shall submit the same by duly filing the form within next 30 days and thereafter, his option shall be considered in accordance with Rules and if is entitled for the benefits of GPF, the same would be granted by issuing specific order within the period of two months thereafter. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stand disposed of in the light of directions given here-in-above. 16. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/224