[2025:RJ-JP:38054] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2239/2001 Madan Singh Kanawat, Son Of Shri Bhawani Singh, aged about 48 years, Resident Of Amalada House, Shiv Nagar, Kekri, Distt., Ajmer Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan 2. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Meel, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/09/2025 1. The issue involved in the instant writ petition, is as to whether 25 years of services as mentioned in Clause-18D(1) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 refers to 25 years of qualifying service and total length of service irrespective of any break in service not enabling the concerned employee to seek retiral benefit or not. 2. Both learned counsels appearing for the parties are in complete agreement that the aforesaid issue has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in the case of Ram Lal Doriya Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport [2025:RJ-JP:38054] (2 of 3) [CW-2239/2001] Corporation & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2323/2011), wherein after considering the judgment of Ghasi Lal Pareek Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2568/2023) decided on 04.05.2017 and other similar cases, this Court held as under :- "13. Thus, it is abundantly clear that in the aforesaid judgment of the Ghasi Lal Pareek (Supra), this Court has already interpreted of terms 'service' as 'qualifying service' for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Admittedly, in the instant case the qualifying service rendered by the petitioner was 23 years 7 months and 16 days, which is less than necessary requirement of 25 years of service, hence, the aforesaid judgment of Ghasi Lal Pareek (Supra) squarely covers the controversy of the instant case. 14. The judgment of Ladhu Ram Verma (Supra) relied upon by the respondents is based upon consideration of merits and record of the concerned employee while considering the validity of order of compulsory retirement. Since, in the instant case, the order has been passed at pre- mature stage without following any essential requirement of completing the minimum qualifying service, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents is not at all attracted. 15. In the light of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 13.05.2002 as well as appellate order dated 24.09.2010 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits which may be sanctioned and released within a period of three months from the date of receipt certified copy of this order." 3. In view of the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is also allowed in the light of order dated 18.08.2025 passed in the case of Ram Lal Doriya (supra). Accordingly the order of compulsory retirement dated 17.02.2001 (Annexure-5) is hereby quashed and set aside and the [2025:RJ-JP:38054] (3 of 3) [CW-2239/2001] petitioner is held entitled for all consequential benefit, which may be sanctioned and released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /6