[2025:RJ-JP:20157] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 320/2018 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Sajan Kumar S/o Shri Ramnath Singh, R/o Jeevaka Bas, Post Kharkhadi, Tehsil And Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, At Present Driver, Delux Depot, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ved Pal Shastri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment : 14/05/2025 1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (for short ‘the first Appellate Court’) in appeal No. 21/2017 whereby the first appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal filed by the defendants held the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) entitled to get first selection scale from 16.09.2009 instead of 16.09.2007 and modified the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro in civil suit No. 240/2012 to the aforesaid extent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the order dated 16.02.2012 as null and void. Plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that on 16.09.1994, he was appointed as [2025:RJ-JP:20157] (2 of 4) [CSA-320/2018] Driver. Thereafter, he was given first selection scale with effect from 16.09.2010 vide order dated 16.02.2012 whereas he was entitled to get first selection scale from 16.09.2007 and he had requested the authorities but they denied the same. 3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit because it involves industrial dispute. Plaintiff was appointed on the post of driver on 16.09.1997 for one year on probation but he had not performed his duties honestly. His first selection scale was due on 16.09.2006 but he was served charge-sheet on 16.09.1999 in which he was punished with a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and a warning was also given to him. In other charge-sheet No. 706 dated 24.05.2000, a sum of Rs. 1,510/- was recovered and a warning was also given to him. In third charge-sheet issued to the plaintiff on 10.08.2005, plaintiff was punished with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and a warning was also given to him. So, he was rightly granted the first selection scale from 16.09.2010, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the defendants had illegally sanctioned the first selection scale to the plaintiff from 16.09.2010 instead of 16.09.2007? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declared the order No. 131 dated 16.02.2012 issued by the defendants as illegal and void? [2025:RJ-JP:20157] (3 of 4) [CSA-320/2018] (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the first selection scale from 16.09.2007 and to get his pay fixation done accordingly and to get the difference amount of salary with interest thereon? (4) Whether the dispute raised by the plaintiff being industrial dispute, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit? (5) Relief?” 5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1- Sajjan Kumar. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Radheyshyam Gupta and got exhibited certain documents. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016, while partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, declared the order dated 16.02.2012 as null and void and held the plaintiff entitled to get first selection scale from 16.09.2007 (wrongly typed as 19.06.2007). 7. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 while partly allowing the appeal filed by the defendants held the plaintiff entitled to get first selection scale from 16.09.2009 instead of 16.09.2007 and modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the aforesaid extent. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in setting aside the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the defendants because service career of the plaintiff was unsatisfactory. So, he was rightly granted the first selection scale [2025:RJ-JP:20157] (4 of 4) [CSA-320/2018] from 16.09.2010 but the first appellate Court had committed an error in granting the first selection scale to him from 16.09.2009. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the first appellate court had rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to get first selection scale from 16.09.2009 because plaintiff was served charge-sheets, so date of granting first selection scale was rightly determined as 16.09.2009 instead of 16.09.2007. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 11. Learned first appellate Court while considering the arguments advanced by the defendants clearly held that plaintiff was punished, so he was entitled to get first selection scale from 16.09.2009 instead of 16.09.2007. So, in my considered opinion, no ground is made out to admit the present appeal and no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal. The civil second appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/76