[2026:RJ-JP:12107] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9761/2018 Ashok Kumar Mishra (died during pendency) through Legal Representatives S/o Shri Shyamavtar Mishra, aged 60 years, R/o D-250, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 1/1 Santosh Mishra W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of D-250, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039 1/2 Kalpana Shukla W/o Shri Ashish Shukla D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 40-A-9, Dukan Ke Piche, Jhotwara Road, Nehru Nagar, Pani Pech, Jaipur-302016 1/3 Ruchika Mishra D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 202, Shivaji Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur-302016 1/4 Rahul Mishra S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of 30-A, Olympia City-1, Near Pawanpuri Circle, Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 ----Petitioners Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director cum General Manager, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17752/2015 Ashok Kumar Mishra (died during pendency) through Legal Representatives S/o Shri Shyamavtar Mishra, aged 60 years, R/o D-250, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 1/1 Santosh Mishra W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of D-250, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039 1/2 Kalpana Shukla W/o Shri Ashish Shukla D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 40-A-9, Dukan Ke Piche, Jhotwara Road, Nehru Nagar, Pani Pech, Jaipur-302016 [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (2 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] 1/3 Ruchika Mishra D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 202, Shivaji Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur-302016 1/4 Rahul Mishra S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of 30-A, Olympia City- 1, Near Pawanpuri Circle, Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 ----Petitioners Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director cum General Manager, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Eliyas Khan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anamika Arora Mr. Yash Joshi with Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/01/2026 1. Both these writ petitions were filed by same petitioner (died during pendency of writ petitions) against common respondent, therefore, they are tagged together. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9761/2018 is filed with following prayer:- (i) May direct the respondent for releasing his all retiral dues along with from 1 December, 2017 rate of 12 percent interest till its realization. (ii) The cost of the litigation is also awarded to the petitioner. 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17752/2015 is filed with following prayer:- [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (3 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] (i) Quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2015. (ii) the respondent Corporation be directed to release the salary to the petitioner since 19.07.2012 with interest @12 % p.a. (iii) the respondent Corporation be directed to make true compliance of the award of the Lok Adalat dated 25.05.2012 and also the order dated 18.07.1990 passed by the Additional Muniff and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. (iv) the respondent Corporation be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Conductor w.e.f. 07.11.1984, the date on which the petitioner was initially on the post of Conductor, will all consequential benefits. (v) The cost of the litigation be awarded to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that earlier petitioner has filed a writ petition, which was decided on 18.09.2014 and pursuant to direction of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent. He further submitted that despite direction of this Court, due to non- consideration of his representation, the petitioner has filed a Civil Contempt Petition before this Hon’ble Court and submitted a fresh representation. He further submitted that the petitioner has claimed his salary and other dues from the respondent and same were not released to him. He further referred the facts and submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and his legal representatives were substituted in place of petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (4 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on post of conductor on daily wage basis and his services were terminated on 11.10.1985. The order of termination of challenged by filing a civil suit, which was allowed on 18.07.1990 and the termination order was declared as illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner was taken in duty, but again the petitioner was terminated and the respondent has filed an application for approval of termination, but the same was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. He also submitted that respondents have preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, and during the pendency of the writ petition were referred to Lok Adalat. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted on 25.05.2012, a compromise was entered between the petitioner and respondent, and the matter was decided amicably, and in compliance of the award, the petitioner has joined duty on 19.07.2012 and petitioner has again submitted a representation. He also submitted that on 30.11.2017 when writ petition No.1775/2015 was pending, the petitioner got retired after attaining the age of superannuation, but till date, no dues were paid by the respondent-Corporation. He also submitted that the petitioner is entitled for all his dues, and same were not paid by the respondent. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent and he submitted that the petitioner was working as a daily wager and, on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation, the payments were made. He also submitted that the petitioner is [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (5 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] not entitled to any benefit, which he has claimed. He also submitted that whatever is due has already been paid to the petitioner, and now he is not entitled for any benefit. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material placed on record. 9. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of conductor with the respondent on 07.11.1984, but his services were terminated on 11.10.1985. The termination was declared as illegal vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.1990 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. After reinstatement, the petitioner was again terminated on 03.06.2000, and to seek approval, an application was filed by the respondent before the Industrial Tribunal, but the same was rejected on 18.12.2011. The respondent has filed Writ Petition No. 9728/2011, which was disposed of in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat on 25.05.2012, wherein the petitioner gave up salary for the intervening period. The respondent by issuing an order reinstated the petitioner back in service on 11.07.2012 and posted him at Madhopur Depot, District Sikar. 10. The petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9484/2014, which was disposed of on 18.09.2014 after observing as under:- If what the petitioner contends is correct, then he is indeed facing gross injustice because despite working of 30 years, his services are being continued on daily wages basis by the respondents. The respondents agreed before the Lok Adalat that [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (6 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] his pay shall be fixed and intervening period shall have have to be counted for the purpose of constitution of retiral benefits. The respondents reinstated the petitioner in compliance to aforesaid order of Lok Adalat on 19.07.2012. It is quite surprising that the petitioner is not being paid salary for last more than two years. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is required to approach the Executive Director (Administration), RSRTC, Jaipur by way of filing representation along with copy of this order, who shall look into the matter of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances with regard to fixation of pay, payment of salary of last more than two years and consider his case for regularization on the basis of his working with the respondents for more than 30 years or otherwise decide his representation by passing speaking and reasoned order addressing his grievances within a period of two months from the date the petitioner approaches him. 11. The award of Lok Adalat dated 25.05.2012 is also reproduced as under:- vf/kfu.kZ; i{kdkjksa ds e/; fookn yksd vnkyr ds vo/kkj.k ds fy, fufnZ"V fd,s x,s gSa vkSj i{kdkjksa us ekeys@fo"k; ij le>kSrk@ifjfu/kkZj.k dj fy;k gS] ifjfu/kkZj.k ds fuca/kuksa ds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%& vizkFkhZ v'kksd dqekj feJk iq= Jh ';kekorkj viuk fiNyk osru o vU; vkfFkZd@ifjykHk@NksMrk gSA vizkFkhZ jktLFkku jkT; i{k ifjogu fuxj foHkkx vizkFkhZ v'kksd dqekj feJk dks ,d ekg ds vUnj iqu% lsok esa ysxk vizkFkhZ v'kksd dqekj feJk dh lsokeqfDr ls [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (7 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] iqu% lsok esa vkus rd vof/k esa fujUrjrk cuh jgsxh fdUrq bl vof/k ds dkYifud vkfFkZd ifjykHk ns; ugha gksaxs rFkk ftl osru ij deZpkjh dh lsokeqfDr gqbZ Fkh mlds lekUrj vkt ns; osrueku ij mldk osru LFkjhdj.k fd;k tk;sxk rFkk dsoy lsok fuo`fr ifjykHk ds fy, mDr vof/k 'kkfey ekuh tkosxhA deZpkjh ftl LVsV~l esa lsok i`Fkd gqvk Fkk mlh LVsVl esa iqu% M~;wVh ij fy;k tkosxkA deZpkjh vip vk;q laca/kh izek.k] lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ds le{k is'k dhA i{kdkjksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd U;k;ky; dh Qhl ;fn dksbZ muesa ls fdlh }kjk lanRr dh xbZ gS rks ;g okil dh tk,xhA 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was superannuated on 30.11.2017, and till date, no retirement benefits were paid to him. Annexure R-1 in Writ Petition No. 9761/2018 indicate that the representation submitted pursuant to the order dated 18.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 9484/2014 was disposed of, as if the petitioner was a daily wager and he is not entitled for appointment in a regular pay scale. 13. The operative part of order dated 19.02.2015, passed by the respondent is reproduced as under:- "mDr le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k Øekad la[;k eq[;k@;krk@ih&2@U;k;@12@365 fnukad 10-07-12 }kjk ;kph dks iqu% M~;wVh ij fy;k x;k] ftldh ikyuk esa bUgksaus fnukad 19-07-2012 dks dk;ZHkkj laHkkyk gSA pwafd lsoki`Fkd ds le; nSfud osruHkksxh ds :i esa dk;Zjr Fks bl dkj.k iqu% lsok esa vkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Zjr gSA nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;ferhdj.k ckcr~ Jheku~ v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd ds vkns'k Øekad eq[;k@dk@2&Mh@364 fnukad 29-01-13 }kjk fn'kkfunsZ'k tkjh fd;s [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (8 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] gq, gSaA muds fu;e 3¼1½ vuqlkj fu;ferhdj.k gsrq nSfud osruHkksxh ds :i esa rhu o"kZ dh lsok gksuk vko';d gS ,oa fu;e 3(Vii) ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds fcuk lsok dh fujUrjrk ls lsok esa fy;s x;s deZpkfj;ksa dks lsoki`Fkd fnukad 03-06-2000 ls iqu% lsok esa ysus dh fnukad 19-7-12 rd dh vof/k fu;fer fd;s tkus ds iz;kstukFkZ x.kuk esa 'kkfey ugha fd;s tkus dk izko/kku gSA bl izdj.k fu;ekuqlkj fnukad 19-07-15 ds iwoZ esa fu;fer fd;s tkus ds iz;kstukFkZ x.kuk esa 'kkfey ugha fd;s tkus dk izko/kku gSA bl izdj.k fu;ekuqlkj fnukad 19-07-15 ds iwoZ esa fu;fer osru J`a[kyk esa fu;qfDr ds ik= ugha gksrs gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ds le{k nk;j ,l0ch0flfoy fjV fiVh'ku la[;k 9484@14 v'kksd dqekj feJk cuke fuxe ds ikfjr fu.kZ; 18-09-14 ds Øe esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vkns'k Jheku~ v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd egksn; dh vuqefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSaA" 14. The judgment and decree dated 18.07.1990 indicate that the termination order dated 11.10.1985 was declared as null and void, and the petitioner was found entitled for all benefits. After reinstatement, the petitioner was terminated on 03.06.2000, and an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, for approval of the termination order, but the same was rejected on 18.01.2011. The said order was challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of on the basis of the compromise in a Lok Adalat. [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (9 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] 15. The service of the petitioner is continued since 07.11.1984 till his superannuation on 30.11.2017, which means the petitioner rendered more than 33 years of service in the respondent- Corporation. The order dated 19.02.2015 reflects that services of petitioner is not regularized as in opinion of respondent unless anyone renders continuous service of 3 years, he cannot be considered for regularization. It appears that the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation has not only overlooked the legal position but also the order passed in the case of the petitioner. The material clearly indicates that the services of the petitioner was declared as continuous since 07.11.1984, and there is no break in service. The benefit of continuity has been granted by judgment dated 18.07.1990 and Lok Adalat award dated 25.05.2012. The respondent has agreed for fixation in pay scale and also to consider the period for the purpose of retiral benefits. Further, the petitioner was directed to submit related documents to the concerned Officer. The language of the award dated 25.05.2012 clearly indicates that the petitioner was reinstated with continuity, and only loss to the petitioner was that he foregone actual financial benefits, which means the petitioner is entitled to notional benefits. Therefore, disposal of the representation on 09.02.2015 is contrary to what has been expressed till disposal of Writ Petition No. 9484/2014 on 18.09.2014. 16. The material on record is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the petitioner (since deceased) was entitled to be considered for regularization in accordance with the procedure as prescribed in the respondent-Corporation, and regularization in same manner as [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (10 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] similarly situated persons were considered. The petitioner is also entitled for regularization from the date when his junior person was regularized by the respondent corporation. The petitioner is also entitled for fixation in regular pay scale, but entitled for notional benefits till he joined pursuant to the reinstatement, but thereafter entitled for actual payment of financial benefits. 17. After superannuation, he is entitled for post-retiral benefits which are available to similarly placed employees of the respondent-Corporation and respondent-Corporation cannot discriminate the petitioner on any of the ground as pleaded by them in their reply. 18. The counsel for the respondent has failed to show that under which law or authority, the entitlement of the petitioner was denied, therefore, there is no justification for denial to the petitioner, who has also expired during the pendency of these writ petitions. 19. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, both the writ petitions are allowed and disposed in the following terms:- (i) The order dated 19.02.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra (since deceased) for regularization in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the respondent- Corporation. (ii) The respondent is also directed to regularize the services of Ashok Kumar Mishra (since deceased) from the date when services of his immediate junior person was regularized, if he is found entitled for regularization, as per eligibility creterion. [2026:RJ-JP:12107] (11 of 11) [CW-9761/2018] (iii) The petitioner (since deceased) is entitled for notional benefits till his joining pursuant to Lok Adalat award dated 25.05.2012, but afterwards his legal heirs are entitled for actual benefits on account of salary and other allowances payable as per rules. (iv) On superannuation 30.11.2017, the petitioner Ashok Kumar Mishra (since deceased) was entitled for retiral benefits, therefore, the respondent is directed to compute and calculate post retiral benefits and make payment to the legal heirs of deceased petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 20. Both the writ petitions are disposed with pending applications if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /48-49