CW/5754/2009 of JOGESH YADAV Vs D M R S R T C AND ANR on 24 December 2010

ORDER

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5754/2009Jogesh YadavVersus Managing Director, R.S.R.T.C. and another DATE OF ORDER --- December 24,2010

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA

Mr. K.C.Sharma, for the petitioner Ms. Usha Gupta, for the respondents BY THE COURT

(1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2) With the consent of counsel for both the parties, this writ petition isbeing decided finally at the admission stage.

(3) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the terminationorder dated 16.6.2008 (Ex.3).

(4) The facts, in brief, of the case are that on 16.5.2005, the petitioner wasappointed as Driver-cum-Conductor on fixed remuneration by the RajasthanState Road Transport Corporation (in short `the Corporation') and the term ofhis employment was extended from time to time. On 24.4.2008, while drivingthe bus, an accident took place, and on this ground, the services of thepetitioner were terminated vide order dated 16.6.2008 (Ex.3).

(5) After service of notices, Ms.Usha Gupta, Advocate has put inappearance on behalf of the respondents.

(6) Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Benchjudgment of this Court in an identical matter – Ramraj GurjarV. R.S.R.T.C.(2008 WLC (Raj.)UC 485), by which the appeal of the Driver-appellant hasbeen allowed.

(7) Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid legalposition.

(8) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further consideredthe aforesaid submission of counsel for the parties.

(9) Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce operative part ofthe aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in Ramraj Gurjar. The same isas under:

“7.We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by the following order:

(i) The order dated 17[th] February 2007 passed by the Chief Manager,Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is quashed and set aside.The service of the petitioner is restored in the same manner as wasobtaining on the date of termination i.e. 17[th] February, 2007.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is quashed and set aside.The service of the petitioner is restored in the same manner as wasobtaining on the date of termination i.e. 17[th] February, 2007.

(ii) The petitioner shall be reinstated by the respondents immediately andin no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the orderof this court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages. in no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the orderof this court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages.

(iii) The aforesaid direction shall not, however prevent the respondents innow holding a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if theydesire to do so and in that event the disciplinary enquiry shall not beinfluenced by the present order.”now holding a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if theydesire to do so and in that event the disciplinary enquiry shall not beinfluenced by the present order.”

(10) In my view, case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramraj Gurjar.

(11) The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the aforesaidjudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramraj Gurjar, as under:

(i) The order dated 16.6.2008 (Ex.3). passed by the Chief Manager,Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajaymeru Depot,Ajmer is quashed and set aside. The service of the petitioner isrestored in the same manner as was obtaining on the date oftermination i.e. 16.6.2008.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajaymeru Depot,Ajmer is quashed and set aside. The service of the petitioner isrestored in the same manner as was obtaining on the date oftermination i.e. 16.6.2008.

Conclusion

(ii) The petitioner shall be reinstated by the respondents immediately andin no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the orderof this court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages. in no case later than 15 days from the date of production of the orderof this court. He will, however, not be entitled to any back wages.

(iii) The aforesaid direction shall not, however prevent the respondents in now holding a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, if theydesire to do so and in that event the disciplinary enquiry shall not beinfluenced by the present order.”

(Prem Shanker Asopa) J.

गोpa ल