[2026:RJ-JP:17907] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6095/2026 Paramjeet Singh S/o Shri Guru Dev Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Mokamwala, 10-Ksd, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, District- Sri-Ganganagar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chomu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Through Chairman Cum Managing Director (Raj.) 2. The Executive Director (Admin) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporaton, Chomu House Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Anoopgarh Depot, Distt. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 28/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned termination order dated 18.01.2008 (Annex.5), whereunder the petitioner was initially terminated and also sought a direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts disclose that the petitioner was working as a driver and while he was on duty, it appears that there was an accident, leading to his termination by order dated 18.01.2008 (Annex.5). The said termination order was [2026:RJ-JP:17907] (2 of 3) [CW-6095/2026] challenged before this Court in SBCWP No. 10357/2009 on 26.09.2024, and directed to hold a fresh enquiry having set aside the termination order. It appears that the fresh enquiry was concluded and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation for reinstatement with all benefits which he is entitled under the standing orders of the corporation. The said representation has been filed on 10.09.2025 (Annex.10) and no action was taken thereafter. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner has now again challenged an order which was already set aside, therefore, that part of the prayer is not maintainable and the same is rejected. From the order of setting aside the termination order, there was direction to hold a fresh enquiry and conclude the enquiry within three months. It appears that the enquiry was conducted and it was concluded resulting the exoneration of the petitioner from charges, thereafter, he made a representation. 4. There is no reason for the respondents to keep the consequential action to be taken in pursuance of exoneration of the petitioner from the departmental charge. The representation was pending inordinately without any consideration. The inaction is unjustified and it cannot be countenanced. 5. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to pass a necessary order for reinstatement of the petitioner with all the benefits which he is entitled as a consequence of exoneration from the [2026:RJ-JP:17907] (3 of 3) [CW-6095/2026] departmental proceedings. Such a decision shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt a copy of this order. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J architp/9