Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Depot, Jaipur v. Mohan Singh Panwar S/o

Mohan Singh Panwar S/o Shri Ram Dayal Singh, G 50 Major Shaitan Singh Colony Shastri Nagar Jaipur Ex-Driver Rsrtc Jaipur Depot. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 01/09/2025 Order In the instant appeal, challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.07.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has followed the order passed by the Division Bench in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and Anr. vs. Dharamvir Sharma reported in 2016 (1) RLW 581, wherein he quoted the contents of the order passed in Dharamvir Sharma (supra). The learned Single Judge has disposed of the matter with the same directions, wherein the impugned order [2025:RJ-JP:35131-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-249/2024] further directs grant of notional benefits from initial date of appointment till the date of reinstatement with interest rate at 9%. The RSRTC filed appeal before us submitting that the respondent was not entitled to receive notional fixations as he was reinstated in service on the condition that he would relinquish all benefits along with the superannuation period and he would not claim the same. We find that the contentions of the appellant are wholely misconceived. The award was passed and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. Thus, he was for all purposes required to be treated as employee with the department and, therefore, he was rightly directed to be given notional fixation and benefits for the intervening period. We, therefore, noted that the Division Bench in Dharamvir Sharma (supra) has passed the following directions:-

6.In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the terms of the consent decree are reproduced as follows:- (1) That the Corporation shall not initiate or enquire into the charges/misconduct based on which the services of the workmen have been terminated and the said charges shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. (2) That the workman shall not be entitled to back wages/allowances and any other monetary benefits from the date of termination as a result of the decree passed in their favour in the civil suits giving rise to the present proceedings and the decree to that extent are set aside. (3) That the action initiated by the workman for claim and recovery of the amount on [2025:RJ-JP:35131-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-249/2024] account of wages, allowances or any other benefits from the date of termination against the Corporation shall automatically be treated to have been withdrawn on the basis of the present order. (4) That the workman will stand reinstated in their respective position/status as they held at the time of the termination of their services i.e. to say that daily wages, probationers, and regular temporary workmen will stand reinstated in the same post/status held by them at the time of termination of their services. (5) That the period of absence from the date of termination till joining reinstatement shall be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits, such as pension, gratuity and seniority for future promotion. He shall not be entitled for any past promotion. However the case for future promotions shall considered be in accordance with the rules. (6) That the workmen shall report for duty within a period of 4 weeks to the General manager (Legal), Head office, Jaipur and his order of posting shall be issued within 15 days from the said date for joining his place of posting. In case the workman fails to join his duty within the period prescribed then this compromise shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the case of the workman pending shall be treated to have been dismissed and he shall not be entitled to raise the said dispute afresh future. (7) All proceedings initiated by the workman before any Court, Tribunal or authority shall cease and stand closed as a result of this order. (8) This order does not preclude the appellants from taking disciplinary action against the workman under law, if the circumstances so warrant nor does this order preclude the appellants from proceeding with other enquiries which were not concluded in view of the orders of termination already made."

7. The object, with which the settlement was arrived at, and the terms of consent decree, if read together, [2025:RJ-JP:35131-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-249/2024] do not admit any other Interpretation, except that the workmen will be reinstated in the respective posts/status, as they held at the time of termination of their services, that is to say daily wager, probationers, temporary or regular workmen. The charges against the workmen were withdrawn vide clause Nos. (1) and (4), the workmen were to be reinstated, however without any back wages/allowances and any other monetary benefits, as per clause No.(2). Clause No. (3), provided that any action Initiated by the workman for claim and recovery of the amount on account of wages, allowances or any other benefits from the date of termination against the Corporation, will be treated to have been withdrawn. Clause No. (5), provided for counting his period of absence for the purposes of and seniority for future pension, gratuity promotion.

8. The clauses No. (1) to (5), if read together, clearly demonstrate that the workman was to be put back in the same position, as he was on the date of his termination without any monetary benefits prior to the date of his reinstatement. The order of his reinstatement was to be passed without visiting them with any adverse consequence. The Corporation was, however, left with liberty to take disciplinary action against the workman, if the circumstances so warrant.

9. The settlement clearly provided that the workman will be reinstated, and not reemployed, which means without any ambiguity or doubt that the workman will be relegated to the same position, as he was on the date of termination, which necessarily implied that the workman will be given notional fixation of his pay from the date of his initial appointment, to determine his pay and allowances on the date of his reinstatement. Any other meaning assigned to the term reinstatement would defeat the entire object of the settlement.

10. We may further observe that so far as Krishan Kumar Sharma, a fellow employee, who was also a party to the settlement, is concerned, the appellant- Corporation had 'implemented the order by fixing notional pay from the date of his initial appointment till the date of reinstatement. The pay and allowances for the petitioner were also fixed in the same manner. [2025:RJ-JP:35131-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-249/2024] The Corporation however appears to be wrongly advised to give an incorrect interpretation to the consent decree, to withdraw the pay and allowances, which were given by notional fixation of pay on reinstatement and to recover the differential amount paid to the respondent." Although it was concerned with another person who was also an employee of RSRTC, it cannot be allowed to take different stand with respect to different employees of the department. In view of above, this Court dismisses this appeal and confirms the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV SHARMA /78