Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25191 (RAJ)

CHATURBHUJ JANGID v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ANDORS

CW/23428/2017 · 2025-08-13

Maneesh Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:31438] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23428/2017 Chaturbhuj Jangid s/o Jagannath Jangid, aged about 53 years R/o Village Itawa, Post Joula, Distt. Sawai Madhopur Presently Working As Conductor At Sawai Madhopur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqr. Chomu House, Jaipur 2. The Executive Director Transport Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqr. Chomu House, Jaipur 3. The Executive Director (Legal) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqr. Chomu House, Jaipur 4. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Sawai Madhopur Depot Sawai Madhopur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Rawat with Ms. Dheriti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioner states that in respect of the relief sought in the writ petition, the respondent-Corporation has passed an order dated 31.01.2025, whereby the benefit of ACP has been awarded to the present petitioner. He further submits that though an order has been passed, the required payment has not been paid so far. 2. Counsel for the respondents, however, does not dispute the fact that the order dated 31.01.2025 has been passed. He further [2025:RJ-JP:31438] (2 of 2) [CW-23428/2017] submits that once the order dated 31.01.2025 is issued, he believes that the necessary payment would be made to the petitioner as per the payment schedule of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). 3. In view of the issuance of the order dated 31.01.2025 and facts stated hereinabove, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty that in case the necessary payment is not made as per the payment schedule of the respondent (RSRTC), the petitioner will be at liberty to make an application for revival of the writ petition or to file a fresh writ petition for redressal of his grievances. 4. Heard 5. In view of the facts stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; however, if despite the order dated 31.01.2025 the required payment is not made to the petitioner in terms of the payment schedule of the RSRTC or if any cause of action still survives, he will be at liberty to move an application for revival of the writ petition or to file a fresh writ petition for redressal of his remaining grievances. 6. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /158-S