[2025:RJ-JP:25525] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 97/2007 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its General Manager-cum- Managing Director, Jaipur 2. Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ----Appellants-Defendants Versus Bhagwan Singh Bhati son of Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Village Ramsinghpura, Post Begal via Bagru, Distt. Jaipur ----Respondent-Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta Mr. Rahul Ghiya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 11/07/2025 1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (for short ‘the first Appellate Court’) in appeal No. 20/2002 (23/98) whereby the first appellate Court while partially allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) held him entitled to get annual grade increment and pay fixation from the date of his regular appointment i.e. 31.05.1988 and for the period from 21.19.1979 to 31.05.1988 affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) in civil suit No. 150/91 (458/91). [2025:RJ-JP:25525] (2 of 4) [CSA-97/2007] 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants wherein it was mentioned that the plaintiff was regularly appointed as conductor on 21.09.1979 and his services were terminated on 31.07.1982. Plaintiff challenged the order of his termination and the concerned court vide its judgment dated 02.11.1983 decreed the plaintiff’s suit and declared the termination order dated 31.07.1982 as illegal, null and void and in view of the above, he was directed to be continued in served with all consequential benefits. Against the said judgment and decree dated 02.11.1983, defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.1988. After the said judgment and decree, plaintiff was posted in Kotputli Depot vide order dated 31.05.1988 but the defendants-Corporation neither granted him annual grade increment etc. nor his pay fixation was done and only basic pay of Rs. 880/- per month was being granted to him. 3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff was not appointed as a regular conductor. He has been granted salary in accordance with the terms mentioned in his appointment order. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh dk okn lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS\ 2- vk;k oknh dk okn vUnj fe;kn gS \ 3- vk;k oknh 21-9-79 ls ofj"Brk ,oa leLr lsok ykHk vkfFkZd izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4- vuqrks"k D;k gks \ [2025:RJ-JP:25525] (3 of 4) [CSA-97/2007] 5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1- Bhagwan Singh Bhati and got exhibited certain documents. Defendants had not adduced any evidence in their defence. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1998, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 15.01.1998 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 05.01.2004 partially allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and directed the defendants to grant annual grade increment and pay fixation to the plaintiff from the date of regular payment i.e. 31.05.1988. 8. Defendants-Corporation had challenged the said judgment and decree dated 05.01.2004 before this court by way of second appeal. This court vide order dated 11.04.2008 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “As to whether the civil court has jurisdiction in the service matters covered by the Industrial Disputes Act?’ 9. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the first appellate Court had committed an error in considering the jurisdiction of the civil court. The matter is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act. So, the civil court as well as first appellate Court have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as well as appeal, so the appeal filed by the defendants be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2004 passed by the first Appellate Court be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:25525] (4 of 4) [CSA-97/2007] 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa’, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 held that in case of violation of statutory regulations as also right of equality as contained Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration. So, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RSRTC (supra) clearly mentioned that civil suit is maintainable where principle of natural justice is violated. In the present suit, plaintiff was denied annual grade increment and pay fixation from the date of his regular appointment. So, in my considered opinion, learned first appellate Court has not committed any error in partially allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff as the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The civil second appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/99