Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chail Singh vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 22 July, 2022
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18793/2019
1. Jetha Ram S/o Sh. Dera Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Village Post Taratramadh, Tehsil Chouhtan, District Barmer,
Presently Working At Sirohi Depot.
2. Manohar Singh S/o Karan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Near Nsp School Naya Vas No. 2, Sirohi. Presently Working
At Sirohi Depot.
3. Raichand Ram S/o Shri Jadmal Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o C-10, Bankaram, Sadabahar Kirana Store, Utterlai
Road, Baldev Nagar, Barmer. Presently Working At Jalore
Depot.
4. Ranveer Kumar S/o Sh. Likhama Ram, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Roopasar Sauva Ka Bas, Post Heera Ki
Dhani, Distric Barmer. Presently Working At Alore Depot.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg,
Choumu House, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Choumu
House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Manager, Rsrtc Sirohi Depot, Sirohi.
4. Chief Manager, Rsrtc Jalore Depot, Jalore.
----Respondents
AND
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 378/2020
1. Kailash Singh S/o Chaman Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Village Khokhariya Khedi, Tehsil Vadesar, District
Chittorgarh.
2. Rajendra Singh Shaktawat S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Nahargarh, Tehsil Vadesar, District
Chittorgarh.
3. Narendra Singh S/o Sh. Bharat Singh, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Village Khokhariya Khedi, Tehsil Vadesar,
District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
(Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:44:41 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-18793/2019]
Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg,
Choumu House, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Choumu,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Dy. Chief Manager (Statistics)/ Zonal Manager, Udaipur
Zone, Parivahan Marg, Choumu, Jaipur.
4. Chief Manager, RSRTC Chittorgarh Depot, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
AND
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2028/2020
1. Chail Singh S/o Umed Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village And Post Badi Sid, Tehsil Phalodi. Presently
Working At Phalodi Depot
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Khemchand, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Vedon Ka Baas, Phalodi. Presently Working At
Phalodi Depot.
3. Chattar Singh S/o Bhim Singh, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Village And Post Amla, Tehsil Phalodi. Presently
Working At Phalodi Depot.
4. Poona Ram S/o Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Village Raneri, Tehsil Phalodi. Presently Working At
Phalodi Depot.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg,
Choumu House, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg,
Choumu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Manager, RSRTC Phalodi Depot, Phalodi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit
Ms. Kamini Chouhan
(Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:44:41 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-18793/2019]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 22/07/2022 The present writ petitions have been filed with the following submissions:
The petitioners were appointed on the post of Driver-cum- Conductor in pursuance to the advertisement No.201/2004-05 issued by the respondent-Corporation. The condition in the advertisement specified that after completion of three years of satisfactory service as a Driver, the employee would be regularized as a Driver with the Department. When the petitioners were not regularized after a period of three years, they preferred a writ petition before this Court which was allowed and subsequently, the services of the petitioners were regularized as a Driver.
The issue arose when the petitioners were called upon by the respondent-Corporation to perform the duties of a Driver and their names were included in the duty chart for the drivers. It is the contention of the petitioners that since their appointment, they have been performing the task of conductors only and therefore, they cannot now be asked to perform the duties of a driver. It has been submitted that although the petitioners had been appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor but since the date of appointment, they had been working as conductor only. It has further been submitted that no post such as 'Driver-cum-Conductor' is provided in the Rules governing the respondent Corporation and therefore, vide communication dated 06.05.2014 issued by the Department, an option was called from all the employees working as Driver- cum-Conductor to opt as to on which post they wish to continue. It is the case of the petitioners that they filled their option at the (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:44:41 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-18793/2019] relevant time and therefore, they cannot, now, be called upon to work as a Driver.
Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners had been regularized on the post of Driver and in terms of conditions of service, they are under an obligation to perform the duties of Driver. Even if it is assumed that they worked as conductors, the same cannot entitle them to work only as conductors for whole of their service period. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to condition No.3 of the advertisement wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the person to be appointed can additionally be required to perform the functions of a conductor also. Meaning thereby, the primary function was meant to be of a driver and the additional duties of a conductor could be assigned to those drivers, if required. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24/2020, decided on 13.02.2020 and further affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2020; Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C & Ors. vide order dated 12.01.2022.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
To adjudicate the controversy in question, clause No.3 and 4 of the advertisement would be relevant, which reads as under:
"3- p;fur çR;k'kh dks pkyd ds lkFk lkFk ifjpkyd in dk Hkh dk;Z fy;k tk ldrk gS A vr% iSuy esa p;fur çR;k'kh dks p;u ds ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ifjpkyd ykblsal cuokuk vko';d gksxkA 4- isuy esa ls p;fur izR;fFkZ;ksa dks pkyd ds :i esa yxkus ij izFke o"kZ esa 2100 :i;s izfrekg dh fQDl jkf'k nh tkosxh rFkk nwljs o"kZ esa dk;Z larks"ktud gksus ij 3100 :i;s izfr ekg ds lkFk 100 :i;s izfr ekg izksRlkgu jkf'k ,oa r`rh; o"kZ esa dk;Z larks"ktud jgus ij 3100 :i;s (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:44:41 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-18793/2019] izfrekg ds lkFk 150 :i;s izfrekg izksRlkgu jkf'k dh nj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkosxk] fujUrj rhu o"kZ rd dk;Z larks"ktud <ax ls iw.kZ djus ij fuxe fu;ekuqlkj pkyd in ij fu;fer osru Ja`[kyk esa inLFkkfir fd;k tkosxkA "
A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that an employee could have been regularized only after completion of three years of satisfactory service as a driver. It is an admitted position that the petitioners had been regularized at the relevant point of time on the post of Driver. Meaning thereby, the petitioners had worked as drivers for a period of three years prior to that. If the petitioners contend that they have never worked as drivers, their regularization in terms of the advertisement could never have been made, which would conclude into the fact that the regularization of the petitioners on the post of driver itself was bad. When controverted with this position, learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to make a specific statement as to whether the petitioners worked as conductor only since their date of appointment.
Moresoever, the earlier writ petitions were preferred by the petitioners for regularization on the post of Driver only and in pursuance to the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions, their services have been regularized on the post of Driver. Having once availed the benefit of regularization on the ground that they have been working as a Driver and are entitled to be regularized as such, the petitioners cannot now take a U-turn and contend that they never worked as a Driver. Furthermore, Condition No.3 makes it clear that the petitioners were appointed as Driver-cum- Conductor with the primary function of a Driver. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners now to aver that they cannot be called upon to work as a Driver. The issue is therefore, squarely covered (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:44:41 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-18793/2019] by the ratio as laid down in the case of Ram Kumar Sharma (supra).
In Ram Kumar Sharma's case (supra), it was held as under:
"In view thereof, no case for interference is made out as the petitioner is essentially a person who has been appointed as a Driver alone. There is no document on record to show that petitioner was ever selected or appointed as a Conductor alone. Moreover, the qualifications for the post of Conductor are separate from that of Driver. Hence, merely because work was being taken from him as a Conductor, it would not mean that he should be allowed to work as a Conductor for all times. The order dated 1st November, 2019 does not warrant any interference."
In view of the ratio as laid down in Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Ors. and in view of the observations as made above, the present writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J Ashutosh-Abhishek-91, 93&94 (Downloaded on 25/07/2022 at 08:44:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)