[2026:RJ-JP:21001] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8518/2017 1. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Singh, aged about 55 years. 2. Miss. Jai Shree D/o Late Shri Ram Singh 3. Miss. Vandana D/o Late Shri Ram Singh 4. Puspendra Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Singh. All are resident of Out Side of Dehli Darwaja, Mochika Mohalla, Paharganj, Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Matasya Nagar Depot, Alwar. 3. The Divisional Machenical Engineer (Purchase and Sale) and Authorized Disciplinary Authority the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kant Sharma with Ms. Alenka Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewar Mal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are legal representatives of deceased employee-Shri Ram Singh, seeking directions against the respondent-Corporation to release retiral benefits, arrears of salary, privilege leave encashment, revised pay-scale benefits, consequential service benefits and family pension on account of death of Shri Ram [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (2 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] Singh, who was initially appointed on the post of Driver in the respondent-Corporation and served on substantive basis. 2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that deceased Shri Ram Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, while discharging duties as Driver with the respondent-Corporation, met with an accident on 30.05.1994, wherein, one passenger sustained injuries. Consequently, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and vide award dated 21.05.1999, compensation amounting to Rs.95,355/- came to be awarded against the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter, after about seven years from the date of accident, the respondent-Corporation issued charge- sheet dated 30.05.2001 to deceased Shri Ram Singh alleging negligence in driving and causing financial loss to the Corporation. Upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, order dated 15.07.2002 was passed imposing penalty of removal from service upon deceased Ram Singh. 3. It has been averred in the writ petition that thereafter, the respondent-Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, seeking approval of penalty order dated 15.07.2002. During pendency of said proceedings, deceased Shri Ram Singh challenged fairness of domestic inquiry and the learned Industrial Tribunal, after examining the inquiry proceedings, held the inquiry to be unfair and improper and, thereafter, granted opportunity to the [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (3 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] respondent-Corporation to prove the charges independently before the learned Tribunal. 4. It has further been pleaded that despite availing such opportunity, the respondent-Corporation failed to establish the charges levelled against deceased Ram Singh and consequently, the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 07.04.2015 rejected the approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 and held the penalty order unsustainable in the eye of law. It is also pleaded that during pendency of said proceedings, deceased Shri Ram Singh expired, and the present petitioners were substituted as his legal representatives. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that since the approval application filed by the respondent-Corporation stood rejected and no interim protection operated against the order dated 07.04.2015, the consequence in law was that the order of removal from service became ineffective and inoperative. According to the petitioners, deceased Shri Ram Singh was therefore deemed to have continued in service till his death and consequently, the petitioners became entitled for all consequential service and retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of salary, revised pay-scale benefits and family pension. It has further been pleaded that despite repeated representation dated 27.04.2015 and legal notice dated 17.08.2016, the respondent-Corporation failed to release the admissible dues, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. 6. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-Corporation opposing the writ petition primarily on the [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (4 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Standing Orders as well as under the Act of 1947. It has been pleaded that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners could have availed alternative remedy before competent forum. 7. On merits, the respondent-Corporation has admitted that deceased Shri Ram Singh was employed as Driver with the Corporation, however, it has been alleged that his service record was not satisfactory, and various punishments had earlier been imposed upon him. It has further been pleaded that deceased Ram Singh was driving vehicle No. RJ-14-P-2729 in rash and negligent manner due to which accident occurred causing injuries to passenger and financial loss to the Corporation. According to the respondents, proper inquiry was conducted after granting due opportunity and penalty order dated 15.07.2002 inflicting penalty from removal of service was validly passed. 8. It has further been stated in the reply that the petitioners are not entitled for salary, privilege leave, retiral dues or consequential benefits in lieu of services rendered by late Shri Ram Singh. However, the respondents have not disputed the fact that the approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 stood rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 07.04.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the learned Industrial Tribunal rejected the approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the inevitable legal consequence was that the penalty order ceased to exist in the eye of law and deceased Shri Ram Singh would be deemed to [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (5 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] have continued in service till his death. It has been contended that after rejection of approval application, relationship of employer and employee stood restored automatically and the respondent- Corporation was under legal obligation to release all consequential monetary and retiral benefits. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the respondents have illegally withheld retiral dues and family pension despite there being no subsisting order of removal from service in existence. It is contended that family pension and retiral benefits are not bounty but valuable rights accrued to legal representatives of deceased employee and arbitrary withholding thereof is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation reiterated the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy. It has further been argued that deceased employee had poor service record and several punishments were imposed upon him during service tenure. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are not entitled to consequential benefits merely because approval application under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act of 1947 was rejected. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. The primary issue involved in the present writ petition is as to whether after rejection of approval application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the legal representatives of [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (6 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] deceased employee become entitled for consequential retiral and service benefits or not? 15. Before adverting to merits of the controversy, this Court finds that objection regarding maintainability of writ petition deserves rejection. The controversy involved in the present case pertains to enforcement of legal and statutory rights flowing from adjudication already attained finality between the parties. The respondent-Corporation itself invoked jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 and after rejection of approval application, carried the matter before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9542/2015, which has already been dismissed vide judgment dated 14.05.2026. Once the rights of parties already stand adjudicated and consequential benefits are being denied by State instrumentality despite final adjudication, this Court would not non-suit the petitioners merely on technical plea of alternative remedy. 16. It is not in dispute that while passing penalty of removal against deceased Shri Ram Singh, approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 was filed by the respondent management before the learned Industrial Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 07.04.2015 rejected the said approval application after recording findings that the domestic inquiry was unfair and that the charges levelled against deceased employee could not be proved independently before the learned Tribunal. 17. It is further not in dispute that challenge laid by the respondent-Corporation against order dated 07.04.2015 has [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (7 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] already been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2026 affirming the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, the order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal has attained finality. 18. The legal consequence flowing from rejection of approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 is no longer res integra. Once approval is refused, the order of removal from service becomes ineffective and inoperative in law and relationship of employer and employee is deemed to continue as if order of removal had never been passed. Rejection of approval application strikes at the root of the penalty order itself and such order cannot survive independently. 19. In the present case, once approval application filed by the respondent-Corporation stood rejected and such rejection has further been affirmed by this Court, the removal order dated 15.07.2002 cannot be permitted to survive in the eye of law. Consequently, deceased Ram Singh is deemed to have remained in continuous service till the date of his death and his legal representatives became entitled for all consequential service and retiral benefits admissible under law. 20. The stand taken by the respondent-Corporation that deceased employee had adverse service record or earlier punishments, if any, cannot deprive the petitioners from consequential benefits flowing from final adjudication made by competent judicial forum. Once the order of removal from service itself has become unsustainable in law, the respondents cannot [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (8 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] indirectly deny consequential benefits by relying upon allegations which no longer survive. 21. This Court also finds that despite dismissal of application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 by the learned Industrial Tribunal for seeking approval of penalty order dated 07.04.2015, the respondents continued to withhold retiral dues and family pension of deceased employee without any lawful justification. Family pension and retiral dues are not matters of charity or bounty. They are statutory and accrued rights earned by employee by rendering long years of service and after death of employee, such benefits lawfully devolve upon legal representatives. 22. The action of the respondent-Corporation in withholding retiral dues and family pension despite final adjudication in favour of deceased employee is wholly arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to settled principles of law. The respondents being instrumentality of State were expected to act fairly and reasonably instead of compelling widow and family members of deceased employee to unnecessarily litigate for legitimate dues. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioners, is hereby, allowed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat deceased Shri Ram Singh in continuous service till the date of his death and, consequently release all admissible consequential service and retiral benefits including gratuity, arrears of salary, leave encashment, revised pay-scale benefits and all other admissible dues in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to sanction and [2026:RJ-JP:21001] (9 of 9) [CW-8518/2017] release family pension in favour of petitioner No.1, if otherwise eligible under the applicable Rules. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that if the admissible dues are not released within aforesaid period, the petitioners shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on delayed payment from the date amounts became due till actual payment. 24. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/132