[2025:RJ-JP:32643-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 482/2023 1. Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur. 2. Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar Agar, Central Bus Stand Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Sanwarmal Yadav S/o Shri Udaram Yadav, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 45, Shanti Nagar, Devipura, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 487/2023 1. Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur. 2. Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar Agar, Central Bus Stand Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Jhabar Jakhar S/o Shri Birdharam, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Dasa Ki Dhani, Gokulpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 488/2023 1. Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur. 2. Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar Agar, Central Bus Stand Sikar, Rajasthan. [2025:RJ-JP:32643-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-482/2023] ----Appellants Versus Ashok Meel S/o Shri Ratanlal Meel, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Purabadi Via Sanwali, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 490/2023 1. Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur. 2. Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar Agar, Central Bus Stand Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Ashok Poonia S/o Shri Richpal Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Chuwas, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 498/2023 1. Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarters, Jaipur. 2. Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar Agar, Central Bus Stand Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Mahaveer Pareek S/o Shri Dilsukh Rai, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 2/114 Housing Board Devipura, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Devyani Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Chaudhary [2025:RJ-JP:32643-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-482/2023] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 20/08/2025 1. These appeals are filed against the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. CWP No.9220/2022 (Mahaveer Pareek Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) and Ors.) and other connected matters. The writ petitions were filed seeking quashing of suspension order dated 20.06.2022 and were decided by a common order as the facts and issue involved were similar. 2. It is an undisputed fact that during pendency of the writ petitions the impugned suspension order was revoked vide order dated 13.12.2022. This fact has been noted in para 8 of the impugned order and the same is quoted below:- “8. During course of arguments, it has been stated by the learned counsel for respondents that suspension orders of petitioners have been revoked vide order dated 13.12.2022, albeit disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charge sheets dated 20.06.2022 against petitioners, are pending.” 3. Learned Single Judge further noting this fact proceeded to decide the issues:- (i) as to whether the impugned suspension order issued without accompanying with charge sheet is sustainable as per Clause 35(vi) of the Standing Orders 1965? and (ii) whether the impugned suspension order passed after placing reliance on the office order dated 01.06.2022 and treating the [2025:RJ-JP:32643-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-482/2023] amendment in Clause 35(i) of the Standing Orders of 1965 operative be held as valid? 4. It would be appropriate to reproduce the main prayer of the writ petition (S.B. CWP No.9221/2022):- “By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned suspension order dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-1) may be quashed and set aside.” 5. In view of the nature of prayer made and considering that the order under challenge no longer existed, the writ was rendered infructuous and there was no occasion to proceed further and to decide the legal issues in absence of the impugned order. 6. It would be apposite to note that the appeal filed by the Trade Union challenging the amendment including that of Clause 35(i) in the standing order vide office order dated 01.06.2022 is subject matter of the pending appeals. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified and the writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous as no cause of action survives after revoking of the suspension order. 8. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 9. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J DANISH USMANI /71-75