[2025:RJ-JP:5284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11270/2019 Bhagwan Sahai Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Raghunathpuri, Sainik Marg, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, CBS Depot, Jaipur. 3. Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ankul Gupta Mr.Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) : Mr.Om Prakash Sheoran JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents for payment of actual service benefits with effect from 06.11.1999 in pursuance of the award dated 12.09.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “the Tribunal”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a punishment order was passed against the petitioner by the respondents on 12.01.1984 by which penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments was imposed upon the petitioner for which an industrial dispute was raised by him before the Tribunal by way of filing a claim petition. Counsel submits that the claim petition [2025:RJ-JP:5284] (2 of 3) [CW-11270/2019] submitted by a petitioner was allowed vide award dated 12.09.2003 and the respondents were directed to grant all actual service benefits to the petitioner and the punishment order dated 12.01.1984 was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to pay actual service benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999. Counsel submits that in the operative part, the Tribunal has also passed an order that the petitioner would be entitled to get notional benefits w.e.f. the date of punishment and he would be entitled for actual benefits w.e.f. 06.11.1999. Counsel submits that neither the notional benefits w.e.f. the date of punishment have been granted to the petitioner nor the actual benefits have been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999, but the respondents vide impugned order dated 25.03.2015 has granted notional benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that no prayer has been made by the petitioner for grant of notional benefits w.e.f. the date of passing of the punishment order till 06.11.1999. Counsel submits that the prayer of the petitioner is confined to grant of actual benefits w.e.f. 06.11.1999. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the award dated 12.09.2003 passed by the Tribunal, notional benefits have already been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999 vide order dated 25.03.2015, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. [2025:RJ-JP:5284] (3 of 3) [CW-11270/2019] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has assailed his punishment order dated 12.01.1984 before the Tribunal by way of filing a claim and the said claim was allowed vide award dated 12.09.2003 and the impugned punishment order dated 12.01.1984 was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to grant actual benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999. 6. It appears that misinterpreting the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 and have granted of notional benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999, instead they were supposed to grant actual benefits to the petitioner from the said dates. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to grant actual benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1999, in the light of the award dated 12.09.2003 passed by the Tribunal, with interest @ 9% p.a. 8. Needless to observe, the respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/40