[2026:RJ-JP:748] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6921/2012 Ramesh Chandra Mathur, S/o Shri Munshi Narain Mathur, aged about 56 years, R/o C-49, Nirman Nagar, Queens Road, Ajmer, Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman and Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu, House, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Joint General Manager (Finance), Rajasthan State Road, Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6569/2012 1. Lalit Prasad Joshi Joshi, S/o Shri Laxmi Narain Joshi, aged about 58 years, R/o 170, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. 2. Moti Ram Saini, S/o Shri Godharam Saini, aged about 59 years, R/o Village and Post Deorata, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman & Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. Dy. General Manager (Admn.) Rajashtna State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1441/2013 1. Lalit Prasad Joshi Son Of Shri Laxmi Narain Joshi, aged about 58 years, R/o 170, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur 2. Moti Ram Saini, Son Of Shri Godharam Saini, aged about 59 years, R/o Village And Post Deorata, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar 3. Ramesh Chandra Mathur, Son Of Shri Munshi Naranin [2026:RJ-JP:748] (2 of 6) [CW-6921/2012] Mathur, C-439, Nirman Nagar, Queens Road, Ajmer Road, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 2. Zonal Manager, Jaipur Zone, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur 3. Executive Director (Admn.), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal Ms. Pragya Seth Mr. Kamlesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 09/01/2026 1. Facts, controversy and cause of action in all the above three writ petitions are almost identical therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the above writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of convenience facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6921/2012 are being taken into consideration. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Conductor in substantive capacity on 20th October, 1975. Post of Conductor is governed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. Later on, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 08.03.1979, [2026:RJ-JP:748] (3 of 6) [CW-6921/2012] which is governed by RSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1965. In appointment order dated 08.03.1979 itself, it was mentioned that the employees who were already working in the pay scale of LDC, their pay shall not be changed and those who were not getting the pay scale of LDC, their pay shall be fixed at the initial stage of pay scale admissible to LDC. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time, pay scale of Conductor and the LDC was same. Hence, on appointment of Conductor, pay of the petitioners were fixed at Rs.385 in the pay scale of Rs. 355-570. As per the provisions of Rajasthan Sate Road Transport Corporation Revised Pay Regulations, 1977, benefit of jump was given to the petitioners in the year 1981 and then in the year 1985. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that accordingly, the petitioners continue to draw their salary in accordance with different orders passed by the respondent- Corporation however, quite abruptly, after a period of around 32 years, without affording any opportunity of hearing whatsoever, order dated 17.12.2012 was passed by the respondent- Corporation wherein, it was mentioned that benefit of jump in pay scale w.e.f. 05.12.1981 and 05.12.1985 was wrongly given to the petitioners therefore, by rectifying the mistake which took place 32 years earlier, pay of the petitioner was revised at a lower stage, which is prejudicing the rights of the petitioners and is also causing grave financial loss. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order dated 17.12.2012 or even in the reply to the writ petition, there is no allegation whatsoever that at any point of [2026:RJ-JP:748] (4 of 6) [CW-6921/2012] time, either misrepresentation or fraud has been committed by the petitioner for getting the benefit of jump in pay scale either in the year 1981 or 1985 and admittedly, as per understanding of the prevailing rules of the office of Corporation, benefit of jump in pay scale was given by the corporation to the petitioner. Hence, after a long period of 32 years, withdrawing the same that too without affording any opportunity of hearing is totally arbitrary and illegal therefore, prayer has been made to quash the orders dated 17.12.2012, 19.04.2012 & 05.07.2011. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that at the relevant time, on account of mis- constructions of provisions of new Revised Pay Scale Regulations, 1977, the term "existing pay scale" was misconstrued therefore, benefit of jump in pay scale, which was not otherwise admissible to the petitioners was erroneously granted. The benefits which were available to LDC under the regulations of Corporation were not available to the Conductors whose services were regulated by the standing orders. Hence, when the mistake earlier committed came to surface, it has been rectified vide impugned orders, which have now been passed strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not undisputed between the parties that the petitioners were holding the post of Conductor and were thereafter appointed as LDC with the condition that if, they are already getting the pay scale equal to the scale of LDC then there shall be [2026:RJ-JP:748] (5 of 6) [CW-6921/2012] no change in their pay. It has also not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the pay scales of LDC and Conductor at the relevant time were same. 10. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstance, no plausible reason has been put forward by the Corporation for treating petitioners as dis-entitled for the benefit of jump in pay scale in the year 1981 and 1985 as per the revised pay regulations. 11. Even otherwise, the benefits which were granted 32 years earlier, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn in quite arbitrary manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Needless to mention here that once the benefit of jump in pay scale was granted to the petitioners 32 years back, and they have drawn their salaries bonafidely for 32 years, then such vested rights could not have been taken away without issuing any notice or conducting enquiry. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has utterly failed to show compliance of principles of natural justice in the instant case. 13. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., in S.B. Civil Appeal No. 1635/2013 decided on 08.08.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the action of respondent-Government in the said case of withdrawing the benefits after a long gap, after considering the earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 14. For the reasons mentioned herein and in the light of guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Singh(supra), the writ petitions 6921/2012 & 6569/2012 [2026:RJ-JP:748] (6 of 6) [CW-6921/2012] are allowed. Orders dated 17.12.2012, 19.04.2012 & 05.07.2011 are hereby quashed and set-aside. The petitioners are entitled for all the consequential benefits. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, no cause of action survives in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1441/2013 and the same is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/16-18