[2025:RJ-JP:28094] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 451/2017 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Nigam, Jaipur Raj. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot, Sri Ganganagar, Jaipur Raj. ----Appellants Versus Madan Lal S/o Shri Krishna Lal, By Caste Arora, R/o 24 Iii Block, Near Shyam Pipe Store, Udaram Chauk, District Sri Ganganagar Raj. And Conductor At Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sri Ganganagar Depot ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. C. Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 28/07/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2017 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No.03/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has been partly allowed and reversed the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.368/2010, by which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:28094] (2 of 4) [CSA-451/2017] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of the entitlement of the plaintiff for first and second selection scale in which it was stated that the plaintiff was appointed as a Conductor on 30.01.1984 and his services were regularized on 28.02.1985. The Finance Department issued an order on 25.01.1992 with regard to grant of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service which was also adopted by the Corporation. The plaintiff got the regular pay scale on 28.02.1985 and he completed 25 years of service. The plaintiff was granted first selection scale from 02.03.1997 instead of 28.02.1994. The plaintiff was also not granted second selection scale. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that services of the plaintiff was not satisfactory. So, he was given first selection scale of 9 years’ service on 02.03.1997 and during service, plaintiff was punished in 24 matters. So, he is not entitled to get second selection scale from 28.02.1994. The present dispute is triable under the Industrial Dispute Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k fd oknh viuh izFke fu;fer fu;qfDr fnukad 28-2-1985 ls x.kuk djokdj izFke p;fur osrueku fnukad 2-3-97 ds LFkku ij fnukad 28-2-1994 la’kksf/kr djokus rFkk f}rh; p;fur osrueku izkIr djus o blh vuqlkj osru fu/kkZfjr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k fd oknh osru fu/kkZj.k ds i'pkr~ cdk;k osru varj jkf’k ,oa ml ij 12 izfr’kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:28094] (3 of 4) [CSA-451/2017] 3- vk;k fd gLrxr okn dh lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS\ 4- vk;k fd oknh }kjk xyr okn ewY;kadu dj de U;k; 'kqYd ij okn izLrqr fd;k gS\ 5- vk;k fd oknh dk okn fe;kn ckgj gS\ 6- vk;k fd oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvk gS\ 7- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Madan Lal. Defendants got examined as DW1-Bharat Singh. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2013 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 23.01.2013. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2017 partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and held the plaintiff entitled to get first selection scale from 02.03.1995 instead of 02.03.1997 and also directed the defendants to grant the second selection scale to the plaintiff after completion of 18 years of the plaintiff’s service from 02.03.2003 excluding the period during which annual grade increment was withheld. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the appellate court had committed error in granting the selection scale to the plaintiff from 02.03.1995 instead of 02.03.1997 because plaintiff was punished on number of times, so, his annual grade increment was withheld. So, defendants rightly granted the first selection scale to the plaintiff from 02.03.1997. He also stated that second selection scale was not accrued to the plaintiff because his 18 years of service was not completed on account of withheld of annual grade increment during enquiries. So, present [2025:RJ-JP:28094] (4 of 4) [CSA-451/2017] appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that only one annual grade increment was withheld. So, plaintiff was entitled to get first selection scale on 02.03.1995 and also rightly ordered that period during which annual grade increment was withheld is to be excluded from 02.03.2003 i.e. date of granting second selection scale. So, no substantial question of law is made out. So, present appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. Appellate court while directing to grant the first selection scale from 02.03.1995 clearly mentioned that only one annual grade increment to the plaintiff was withheld. So, there was no occasion to grant him first selection scale from 02.03.1997 and appellate court rightly ordered for granting second selection scale after excluding the period during which annual grade increment was withheld. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /71