[2026:RJ-JP:1502] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6210/2013 Amar Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Kanhiya Lal Jain, Aged 62 years, R/o A-18, Tulsi Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Transport Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Central Bust Stand, Sindi Camp, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharam Chand Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh for R-2,3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 09/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for assailing the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, whereby directions have been given to effect recovery of amount, earlier determined vide order dated 19.05.2011, from gratuity payable to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor in substantive capacity on 17.04.1974. Post of Conductor is governed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. Later on, the petitioner was appointed on the newly created post of Receptionist, which is governed by RSRTC Employees [2026:RJ-JP:1502] (2 of 5) [CW-6210/2013] 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. 3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13278/2011 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 05.09.2012, whereby although order dated 05.09.2011 was quashed yet liberty was granted to the respondent-Corporation to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, in pursuance of order dated 05.09.2012 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, respondents have passed order dated 21.01.2013, whereby the earlier orders of the corporation were confirmed and finding the earlier pay fixation of the petitioners in the year 1985 after giving him benefit of jump in the pay scale, as incorrect and wrong, directions have been given for refixation of pay and recovery of excess amount from the gratuity of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time, pay scale of Conductor and the Receptionist was same. Hence, on appointment of Conductor, pay of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 355-570. As per the provisions of Rajasthan Sate Road Transport Corporation Revised Pay Regulations, benefit of jump was given to the petitioner in the year 1983 while holding the post of Receptionist. [2026:RJ-JP:1502] (3 of 5) [CW-6210/2013] Later on post of Receptionist was merged with the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) having the same pay scales. 6. 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 26 years, without affording any opportunity of hearing whatsoever after retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.2011, an order dated 19.05.2011 followed by order dated 15.09.2011 was passed by the respondent-Corporation wherein, it was mentioned that benefit of jump in pay scale in the year 1985 was wrongly given to the petitioner therefore, by rectifying the mistake which took place 26 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. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order or even in the reply to the writ petition, there is no allegation whatsoever that at any point of 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 26 years, withdrawing the same is totally arbitrary and illegal therefore, prayer has been made to quash the order dated 21.01.2013. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation vehemently opposed the writ petition and [2026:RJ-JP:1502] (4 of 5) [CW-6210/2013] submitted that at the relevant time, on account of mis- constructions of provisions of new Revised Pay Scale Rules, the term "existing employee" was misconstrued therefore, benefit of jump in pay scale, which was not otherwise admissible to the petitioner was erroneously granted. 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. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not undisputed between the parties that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor and was thereafter appointed as Receptionist/ATI, carrying the same pay scale. 11. 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 1985 as per the revised pay regulations. 12. Even otherwise, the benefits which were granted 26 years earlier, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn in quite arbitrary manner, on irrational and unjustified grounds. Needless to mention here that once the benefit of jump in pay scale was granted to the petitioners 26 years back, and they have drawn their salaries bonafidely for 26 years, then such vested rights could not have been taken away without issuing any notice or conducting enquiry. [2026:RJ-JP:1502] (5 of 5) [CW-6210/2013] 13. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909 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., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909. 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 petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 21.01.2013 is hereby quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits. Necessary exercise shall be done within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/46