[2025:RJ-JP:6008] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10520/2021 Shyam Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma (Conductor), Aged About 60 Years, Village Dhanipura, Post Barolichar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 2. General Manager (Purchase/store) And Authorized Disciplinary Authority, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Alwar Depot Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devyani Rathore, Dy. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/02/2025 1. A prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to release the service benefits and post retiral benefits to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Conductor and his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 24.05.2002 and thereafter, an application was submitted by the respondents under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short [2025:RJ-JP:6008] (2 of 4) [CW-10520/2021] 'the Tribunal') seeking approval of the termination order of the petitioner. 3. Counsel submits that the Tribunal passed an order by which it was found that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was found to be unfair and invalid and thereafter, a final order was passed on 19.02.2021 by which approval was denied to the respondents. Counsel submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner stood retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2016. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the relief sought for be granted to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order dated 19.02.2021, passed by the Tribunal by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 33(2)(B) of the Act of 1947, was assailed by the respondents before this Court by way of filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8805/2021 and because of the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the retiral benefits were not extended to the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. The instant petition is liable to be rejected. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that the aforesaid writ petition submitted by the respondents has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025, hence, under these circumstances, the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal has attained finality. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. [2025:RJ-JP:6008] (3 of 4) [CW-10520/2021] 7. Perusal of the record indicates that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner for taking certain passengers without ticket and after holding some inquiry, a decision was taken by the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner and accordingly, a decision was taken on 24.05.2002 in this regard. After that an application under Section 33(2)(B) of the Act of 1947 was submitted by the respondents before the Tribunal seeking approval of the termination order of the petitioner. The aforesaid application submitted by the respondents was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2021, meaning thereby, that approval was not granted against the termination order of the petitioner, subsequently, the said order passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the respondents before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8805/2021, however, the same was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025, hence, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality. 8. Looking to the fact that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor on 08.04.1983 and thereafter, his services were terminated on 24.05.2002, the petitioner has not worked in the intervening period, till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, but, subsequently, the approval against the termination order of the petitioner was denied by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.02.2021, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get actual service benefits with effect from date of his appointment till the date of passing of the order dated 24.05.2002 and he would be entitled to get notional benefits with [2025:RJ-JP:6008] (4 of 4) [CW-10520/2021] effect from the same date, till the date of retirement i.e. 30.09.2016. 9. As the petitioner has not worked in this intervening period, he is not entitled to get monetary benefits on the basis of principle of ‘No Work No Pay’. 10. The respondents are directed to do the needful exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. 12. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/68