HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. Dhanesh Chand Sharma S/o

: Mr. Rewar Mal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 18 /0 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan City (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 11/2011 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Jaipur City (East) Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No.03/2009, by which the trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) held him entitled to get first selection scale on [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (2 of 5) [CSA-135/2019] completion of 9 years service on the basis of notional pay fixation from 22.04.1989 to 12.05.1993. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get service benefit after 01.11.2001 as per the Corporation’s Service Rules prevalent at the relevant point of time. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants wherein it was mentioned that he was appointed as a Conductor on 26.09.1987 in the regular pay scale. As per order dated 25.01.1992 issued by the Finance Department of the State, Ministry Employees and Class-IV Employees have been directed to be given first, second and third selection pay scale on the completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Subsequently, the defendants retrenched the plaintiff’s service on 22.04.1989. Subsequently, the plaintiff was taken back in service as daily wager on 12.05.1983, against which the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration which was decreed in his favour on 28.01.2002, whereby his services from 22.04.1989 to

12.05.1993 was directed to be regularized, his notional pay fixation was directed to be done and regular pay scale was directed to be given from 12.05.1993. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal and the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur City vide its judgment dated 21.05.2003 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. The plaintiff had completed more than 20 years of service from the date of his appointment i.e. 26.09.1987, the plaintiff had completed 9 years of service on 26.09.1996 and 18 years of service on 26.09.2005, thus, he was entitled to get first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service from 26.09.1996 and second selection scale on completion of 18 years of service on [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (3 of 5) [CSA-135/2019]

26.09.2005, but defendants had not granted him first and second selection scale to the plaintiff. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff joined his duties as Conductor on 17.09.1987 on one year’s probation period. Later on, his services were not required, so, services of conductors were retrenched from 22.04.1989 but due to interim order, he was retrenched from service with effect from

14.06.1989. The plaintiff was again appointed as daily wager. After completion of three years of service as a daily wager, vide order dated 11.10.1996 the plaintiff was appointed on one year’s probation period. Pursuant to which plaintiff joined his duties in the Corporation on 14.10.1996. So, on completion of 9 years of service, his first selection scale was due on 14.10.2005 but service record of the plaintiff was not good, so first selection scale fell due on 13.08.2011, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff on completion of 9 and 18 years of service, entitled to get the benefit of first and second selection scale and accordingly entitled for pay fixation? (2). Whether the plaintiff after pay fixation entitled to get 12% interest per year on the difference amount of salary? (3). Relief? [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (4 of 5) [CSA-135/2019] To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Dinesh Chand. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Suraj Narayan. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2011, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated

22.04.2011 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit because only the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to try it. So, order of the trial court as well as appellate court are required to be set aside on account of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that services of the plaintiff was not satisfactory because he was punished on number of occasions, so he was not entitled to get first selection scale from the year 1989. So, findings regarding selection scale of the trial court as well as appellate court are required to be set aside. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (5 of 5) [CSA-135/2019] It is an admitted position that retrenchment order was set aside by the competent court and appeal was also dismissed by the appellate court. The trial court as well as appellate court while deciding the issue of retrenchment clearly mentioned that his services would be regular but he would be entitled to get notional benefits and plaintiff was never punished before 26.09.1986. The Hon’ble Appeal Court in the case of ‘Rajasthan Sate Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa’ reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 clearly mentioned that civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, if the principles natural justice is violated. So, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. AVINASH GULERIA /64 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

: Mr. Rewar Mal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 18 /0 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan City (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 11/2011 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Jaipur City (East) Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No.03/2009, by which the trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) held him entitled to get first selection scale on [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (2 of 5) [CSA-135/2019] completion of 9 years service on the basis of notional pay fixation from 22.04.1989 to 12.05.1993. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get service benefit after 01.11.2001 as per the Corporation’s Service Rules prevalent at the relevant point of time. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants wherein it was mentioned that he was appointed as a Conductor on 26.09.1987 in the regular pay scale. As per order dated 25.01.1992 issued by the Finance Department of the State, Ministry Employees and Class-IV Employees have been directed to be given first, second and third selection pay scale on the completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Subsequently, the defendants retrenched the plaintiff’s service on 22.04.1989. Subsequently, the plaintiff was taken back in service as daily wager on 12.05.1983, against which the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration which was decreed in his favour on 28.01.2002, whereby his services from 22.04.1989 to

12.05.1993 was directed to be regularized, his notional pay fixation was directed to be done and regular pay scale was directed to be given from 12.05.1993. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal and the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur City vide its judgment dated 21.05.2003 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. The plaintiff had completed more than 20 years of service from the date of his appointment i.e. 26.09.1987, the plaintiff had completed 9 years of service on 26.09.1996 and 18 years of service on 26.09.2005, thus, he was entitled to get first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service from 26.09.1996 and second selection scale on completion of 18 years of service on [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (3 of 5) [CSA-135/2019]

26.09.2005, but defendants had not granted him first and second selection scale to the plaintiff. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff joined his duties as Conductor on 17.09.1987 on one year’s probation period. Later on, his services were not required, so, services of conductors were retrenched from 22.04.1989 but due to interim order, he was retrenched from service with effect from

14.06.1989. The plaintiff was again appointed as daily wager. After completion of three years of service as a daily wager, vide order dated 11.10.1996 the plaintiff was appointed on one year’s probation period. Pursuant to which plaintiff joined his duties in the Corporation on 14.10.1996. So, on completion of 9 years of service, his first selection scale was due on 14.10.2005 but service record of the plaintiff was not good, so first selection scale fell due on 13.08.2011, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff on completion of 9 and 18 years of service, entitled to get the benefit of first and second selection scale and accordingly entitled for pay fixation? (2). Whether the plaintiff after pay fixation entitled to get 12% interest per year on the difference amount of salary? (3). Relief? [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (4 of 5) [CSA-135/2019] To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Dinesh Chand. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Suraj Narayan. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2011, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated

22.04.2011 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit because only the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to try it. So, order of the trial court as well as appellate court are required to be set aside on account of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that services of the plaintiff was not satisfactory because he was punished on number of occasions, so he was not entitled to get first selection scale from the year 1989. So, findings regarding selection scale of the trial court as well as appellate court are required to be set aside. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments. [2025:RJ-JP:26321] (5 of 5) [CSA-135/2019] It is an admitted position that retrenchment order was set aside by the competent court and appeal was also dismissed by the appellate court. The trial court as well as appellate court while deciding the issue of retrenchment clearly mentioned that his services would be regular but he would be entitled to get notional benefits and plaintiff was never punished before 26.09.1986. The Hon’ble Appeal Court in the case of ‘Rajasthan Sate Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa’ reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 clearly mentioned that civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, if the principles natural justice is violated. So, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. AVINASH GULERIA /64 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J