[2025:RJ-JP:27830] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 353/2017 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bikaner Depot. 3. General Manager Legal, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Narendra Mohan S/o Shri Ramnath, Village And Post Bhanpur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anukul Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 25/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil regular appeal No. 15/11(31/10), whereby the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) by which the trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for [2025:RJ-JP:27830] (2 of 5) [CSA-353/2017] short ‘the plaintiff) held him entitled to get the regular pay and increments from 18.08.1991 in accordance with the rules. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that he was initially appointed as a daily wager vide order 01.07.1985. Thereafter, without assigning any reason, vide order dated 17. 07.1985 issued by Divisional Manager, Jaipur the plaintiff’s services were terminated against which the plaintiff filed a suit No. 1280/88 which was decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur on 31.10.1994 and the plaintiff’s termination order was treated as illegal and he was held entitled to continue in service. Despite that when the plaintiff was not allowed to join the duties by the defendants, the plaintiff filed an execution whereupon attachment warrants were issued. As a result of which, vide order dated 27.12.1995, the plaintiff was posted in Bikaner Depot subject to decision of the appeal. As per circular dated 31.03.1995 issued by the defendants, there is a provision for granting regular pay scale to a daily wager conductor on completion of 3 years of service. Since, the plaintiff had completed 3 years of service on 18.08.1991, therefore he is entitled to be granted regular pay scale with effect from the date i.e. 18.08.1991. In the last, it was prayed that the plaintiff’s suit be decreed and he be granted regular pay scale with effect from 18.08.1991. His pay fixation be done and arrears whereof be paid to him along with interest @ 18% per annum. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 47 of [2025:RJ-JP:27830] (3 of 5) [CSA-353/2017] the CPC. The plaintiff was appointed as daily wager employer. His services never remained satisfactory and he was served with charge-sheets 15 times. An appeal is also pending against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1994 before the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ”1- vk;k oknh U;k;ky; ls bl vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd oknh fu;eksa ds rgr fnukad 18-8-91 ls fu;fer osru J`a[kyk vkSj osru o`f);ksa dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ --oknh 2- vk;k oknh U;k;ky; ls bl vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd oknh osru fu/kkZj.k ds ckn cdk;k jkf’k ij 18 izfr’kr okf"kZd C;kt nj ls C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ --oknh 3- vk;k oknh dk okn /kkjk 47 lh ih lh ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr iks"k.kuh; ugha gS \ --izfroknh 4- vk;k mRrj okn ds pj.k dze 5 esa vafdr dkj.kksa ls oknh dk okni= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ --izfroknh 5- vk;k oknh dk okn izhfeP;ksj gS blfy;s [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ --izfroknh 6- vk;k mRrj okn ds pj.k dze 10 esa vafdr dkj.kksa ls oknh dk okn iks"k.kuh; ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ --izfroknh 7- vuqrks"k \” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Narendra Mohan Sharma and got exhibited certain documents and [2025:RJ-JP:27830] (4 of 5) [CSA-353/2017] to prove their case, the defendants also got examined DW-1- Sayar Singh and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010, while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, held him entitled to get the benefit of regular pay and salary increments with effect from 18.08.1991 in accordance with the rules. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed by the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court as well as the appellate Court have committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that service of the plaintiff was not satisfactory and 15 charge-sheets were served to him and he was rightly terminated. So, he is not entitled to get the benefits of regularization and other consequential benefits. So, the judgments and decree passed by the courts below deserve to 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 the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to get the [2025:RJ-JP:27830] (5 of 5) [CSA-353/2017] benefit of regular pay scale and increments with effect from 18.08.1991 in accordance with the rules. No charge-sheet was served to the plaintiff from 18.08.1988 to 18.08.1991 and the said contention was also admitted by the defendant-witness DW-1- Sayar Singh. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. The defendants witness DW-1 Sayar Singh in his cross- examination admitted the fact that no charge-sheet was served to the plaintiff from 18.08.1988 to 18.08.1991 and he was never punished from 31.01.1996 to 31.01.1999. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2017 rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. So. 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. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/37