[2026:RJ-JP:11953] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5204/2016 Ghanshyam Nagar, aged about 48 years resident of 857, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan, State Road Transport Corporation Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan through its Managing Director 2. General Manager (Administration) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anubodh Subodh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "By an appropriate order and direction the respondents may kindly be directed to implement the order dated 22.2.1993 in true sense and give appointment to the regular pay scale of regular petitioner the post in of Machine Operator (Artisan) Press Gr.I by fixing his pay at the minimum of the scale along with dearness allowance and other admissible allowance w.e.f. 13.7.1991 and arrear thereof from 13.7.1991 to the actual date of payment [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (2 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] and pay the arrear with 18% interest thereon from due date to the actual date of payment." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager employee in the year 1990 in packing and binding and, while extending his tenure, by order dated 01.12.1990, the petitioner was assigned duties of mixing and binding. He also referred to orders dated 24.02.1991 and 09.09.1991 and submitted that the petitioner was working as a machine operator, which is evident from the documents and identity card issued to the petitioner. 3. He further submitted that similarly placed persons were not only regularized but also appointed as Artisan Grade-I, whereas the petitioner was regularized and posted as a Class-IV employee. He further referred to the difference in the pay scale of Artisan Grade-I and Class-IV and submitted that the action of the respondent Corporation is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel has further referred to the order dated 22.02.1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6583/1991 and the order dated 16.07.1999 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 334/1993 and submitted that the petitioner was granted the pay scale of Artisan Grade-I from the year 1991 to 1993 and thereafter pay scale of Artisan Grade-III was granted to the petitioner. 5. He also submitted that the respondent Corporation filed a D.B. Special Appeal (Writ), which was dismissed on 08.09.2008. He further submitted that another Writ Petition [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (3 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] No. 5679/1998 regarding regularization of service was dismissed on 12.09.2006 and the SLP filed by the respondent Corporation was withdrawn from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.07.2010. He further submitted that the review petition filed by the respondent Corporation was dismissed with a cost of ₹5,000/-. 6. He also submitted that the second Contempt Petition was dismissed on 21.01.2016 and thereafter the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition was filed. Learned counsel has further submitted that the present writ petition was decided on 13.03.2023 whereby a Coordinate Bench directed the respondent to comply with the order dated 22.02.1993 passed by this Court, but on a review petition filed by the respondent, the order dated 13.03.2023 was recalled and the writ petition was restored for reconsideration. 7. He also submitted that the petitioner is waiting for justice for last 33 years and this is a classic case of discrimination, where petitioner has pleaded that, despite directions by this Hon’ble Court, the respondent has not granted the pay scale of Machine Operator/Artisan (Press) Grade-I by fixing his pay at the minimum of the pay scale along with Dearness Allowance and other admissible allowances. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, who placed reliance upon reply filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has filed the same writ petition which was earlier filed in the year 1991 and decided on 22.02.1993. He also referred to the order dated 22.02.1993 and subsequent [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (4 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] contempt proceedings, including order dated 16.07.1999 passed by this Hon’ble Court and submitted that compliance of the order has been made; therefore, this petition is not maintainable. He also submitted that the petitioner had filed another writ petition in the year 1998 for regularization and consequential appointment, but the said writ petition was dismissed on 12.09.2006. He further submitted that despite knowing this fact, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, which is barred by the principle of res judicata. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that the petitioner was appointed for packing and binding work on a contract basis on a fixed amount for a short duration, but his services were extended as per requirement. He also submitted that certain employees working in the press prior to 01.01.1991 were appointed as Machine Operators/Artisan Grade-I, whereas at that time the petitioner was working as a helper, and his services were regularized accordingly on the post of helper. He further submitted that the issue has already been considered by this Hon’ble Court and compliance of the order passed in the earlier writ petition has already been noted by this Hon’ble Court; therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (5 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] 11. The material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 6583/1991 and same was disposed of on 22.02.1993 with following observation: "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent-Corporation is directed to give the petitioner regular pay scale of the post of Machine Operator (Artisan (Press) Gr.I by fixing his pay at the minimum of the scale along with dearness allowance and other admissible allowannes w.e.f. 13th Nov., 1991. This will, however, not confer any right to the petitioner to be treated and considered for regular appointment from the date of his initial appointment. Parties are left to bear their own costs." 12. Aggrieved respondents have filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 860/1993, but the same was dismissed on 08.09.2008. Thereafter, the respondents preferred SLP (Civil) No. 5996/2009, which was dismissed on 30.07.2010 with certain observations: "After the attention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was invited to order dated 22 February, 1993, wherein it was stated on behalf of the petitioner- Corporation that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of minimum pay in the regular pay scale of the post he was working, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition stating that the petitioner would like to approach the High court for appropriate orders. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed." [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (6 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] 13. Pursuant thereto, the respondents filed S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 288/2011, which was dismissed on 21.02.2014 with a cost of ₹5,000/-. The petitioner thereafter filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1273/2013, which was dismissed on 21.02.2016 with cost. While considering the case of the petitioner, it was observed that an earlier Contempt Petition No. 334/1993 had already been dismissed on 16.07.1999 and that the second contempt petition was filed concealing the fact of filing of the earlier contempt petition. It is, thus, evident that two contempt petitions filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the order dated 22.02.1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6583/1991 have already been dismissed by this Court. 14. The petitioner had also filed another Writ Petition No. 5679/1998 seeking consideration and regularization of his services as Machine Operator/Artisan Grade-I and consequential appointment from 30.05.1995, i.e., the date on which persons having lesser qualification than the petitioner were granted appointment in Cadre Artisan Grade- I and II. A Coordinate Bench after considering the submissions of both the parties, have dismissed the writ petition on 12.09.2006. 15. Now writ petition is filed by petitioner which was infact allowed by a Coordinate Bench on 13.03.2023 with following order: "Petitioner submits that specific directions were issued to the respondents to grant regular pay scale to him of the post of Machine Operator / [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (7 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] Artisan (Press) Gr.I by fixing his pay at the minimum of the pay scale along with dearness allowance and other admissible allowances w.e.f. 13th November 1991. Petitioner submits that instead of granting regular pay scale of Artisan (Press) Gr.I and minimum pay at the minimum of the scale ofArtisan Gr.III has been granted to the petitioner by treating his services on the post of Artisan Gr.III while the petitioner is working on the post of Machine Operator / Artisan Gr.I. Above act of the respondents is contemptuous. It is quite shocking state of affairs and unfortunate on the part of the respondents that in-spite of passing of three decades the order dated 22.02.1993 passed by this Court 30 years back has been not complied in toto. Instant petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to make compliance of the order date 22.02.1993 in toto in its true letter and spirit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." 16. Review Petition No. 106/2023 filed by the respondent Corporation was allowed on 19.07.2023 and the order dated 13.03.2023 was recalled. The reasons of recalling is as under: [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (8 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] "Counsel for the review petitioner has drawn attention of this Court on various orders passed by the authorities and passed by this Court while deciding contempt petitions filed by the writ petitioner and these facts were not brought into notice of this Court at the time of passing of the order dated 13.03.2023. In view of the factual aspect of the case, the matter requires adjudication on its merit, hence the order dated 13.03.2023 is recalled and the SBCWP No. 5204/2016 is restored to its original number." 17. Having considered aforesaid, material on record, it is apparent that while considering Contempt Petition No. 334/1993 arising out of Writ Petition No. 6583/1991, a Coordinate Bench had observed that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had already been granted pay scale of Machine Operator/Artisan (Press) Grade-I on 22.02.1993 and was subsequently granted regular pay scale on 21.07.1995. Thus, compliance of the order had already been made and no further interference was called for. 18. Considering aforesaid, the matter pertains to implementation of the order dated 22.02.1993, which has already been examined in two contempt petitions, firstly in Contempt Petition No. 334/1993 and secondly in Contempt Petition No. 1273/2013. While considering Review Petition No. 106/2023, [2026:RJ-JP:11953] (9 of 9) [CW-5204/2016] a Coordinate Bench has also observed that there was concealment of material facts by the petitioner. 19. The material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner is not only misusing the forum of this Court but is also filing successive petitions to obtain a favourable order, which is contrary to settled principles of law. Though this Court does not approve the practice adopted by the petitioner, but considering a fact that the petitioner is a Class-III/IV employee, no further cost is being imposed, as cost has already been imposed while dismissing the second contempt petition, therefore, no case is made out for issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition, along with the miscellaneous application, if any, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /52