Rajasthan High Court
CW/9685/2026 of GIRRAJ PRASAD SON OF SHRI CHIRANJI LAL Vs RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 27 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9685/2026 1. Girraj Prasad Son Of Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 27, Parvati Puram, Block-E, Rangtalab, Arjunpura, Borkheda, Kota (Raj.) 2. Dhanna Lal Gochar Son Of Shri Jawahar Lal, Aged About 58
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9685/2026
1.
Girraj Prasad Son Of Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 27, Parvati Puram, Block-E, Rangtalab, Arjunpura, Borkheda, Kota (Raj.)
2.
Dhanna Lal Gochar Son Of Shri Jawahar Lal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Gujjaro Ka Mohalla, Nanta, Kota (Raj.)
3.
Chandra Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Gajanand Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Village Dabri Khurd, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)
4.
Bhawani Shankar Son Of Shri Gajanand, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 5, Baleta Road, Manetawas, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office At Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur.
2.
The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office At Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur.
3.
The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota Aagar, Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. R.K. Gouttam
Mr. G.S. Gouttam
Ms. Arati Bai Meena
Ms. Saakshi Meena
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
27/05/2026
1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with following prayers:-
(2 of 3) [CW-9685/2026] "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed,
i) The Hon'ble Court may be declare illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents by which respondents not paying the salary to the petitioners from November 2025 to till by orally saying that they are not drive the vehicle 3000 KM in a month while the petitioners continuously discharging the light duty as assigned them by the respondents according to medical board opinion;
ii) Further the Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed to the respondents to pay the due salary to petitioners from November 2025 to till date along with interest @ 12% P.A. on account of not pay the salary by the respondents timely;
iii) Any other appropriate order, or direction which this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant may also kindly be passed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of the fact that the petitioners are suffering from serious ailment and were not physically capable to drive the vehicle, therefore, they have requested Authorities to assign them work of sedentary nature. Request made by the petitioners has been accepted to the extent of assigning them light duties/work other than the work of driver; however, petitioners have not been paid the due salary for the reasons verbally informed to the petitioners that, the petitioners had not drove the vehicle for 3000 Kms per month as driver.
3. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are still in service of the respondents and have been continuously attending their duties, therefore, depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right to get salary for the reasons which are not in accordance with law, is quite arbitrary. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have also served one legal notice dated 13.05.2026
(3 of 3) [CW-9685/2026] calling upon the respondents to grant them benefit of salary, yet no positive action has been taken so far.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation before the respondents for raising their grievances, which may be considered by the Competent Authority and be also addressed expeditiously.
5. In view of above limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation before the Competent Authority, who shall consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 50/NEERU