Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17223 (RAJ)

ASHOK KUMAR SAQXENA v. R S R T C AND ORS

CW/3056/2013 · 2026-01-06

Anand Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:211] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3056/2013 Ashok Kumar Saxena S/o Shri Bachu Lal Saxena, aged about 39 years, R/o Talipura, Bundi (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman & Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. The Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bundi Depot, Bundi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahednra Shah, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition with following prayers: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition be kindly allowed and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to- (i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the act of the respondents in removing the name of the petitioner from the duty chart dated 07.02.2013 onwards to be illegal, invalid and the same be kindly quashed and set aside, with all consequential benefits; (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Booking Clerk against the available vacancies in Bundi Depot itself, with all consequential benefits. (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be kindly passed in favour of the humble petitioners. (iv) Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners." [2026:RJ-JP:211] (2 of 2) [CW-3056/2013] 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, on attaining age of superannuation, petitioner has retired from his services. 3. In view of the above statements, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the instant petition. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/36