Jagatpura, Kho Nagoriyan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through

Judgment

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Ankit Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.R. K. Paliwal for Mr.R. A. Katta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/01/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:3605] (2 of 5) [WRW-147/2023]

1. The instant review petition has been filed seeking review/ modification of the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by this Court, while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5437/2000 submitted by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2023, and respondents were directed to release the benefit of first and second selection scale to the petitioner, after taking into consideration the order of censure and by extending the benefits for a period of one year and the said benefits be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

3. Counsel submits that in the concluding part, this Court observed that if any amount is due against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the respondents would be at liberty to deduct the same from the gratuity of the petitioner.

4. Counsel submits that in fact as per the procedure/ rules prevailing in the respondent-department, they could recover only 20% of the amount of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Counsel submits that this was the precisely stated reply is submitted by the respondents in Para-6. Counsel submits that at the time of passing of the aforesaid order and this fact could not be brought into the notice of this Court at the time of arguments, hence under these circumstances, the order dated

06.09.2023 be modified to that extent.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in [2025:RJ-JP:3605] (3 of 5) [WRW-147/2023] a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that in Para-6 of the reply to the writ petition, the stand of the respondent was to deduct 20% of the amount of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for convenience, the Para-6 of the reply is reproduced as under:- "That the contents of para No. 6 of the writ petition are not admitted and in the connection of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal that has been decided on

26.6.1998 and the respondents were directed to make the payment of Rs.3,34,200/- that was because of negligence of the petitioner and after taking this view into the consideration that the 20% of the awarded amount i.e. passed against the respondents vide order dated 26.61998 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has to be deposited by the petitioner."

8. When the instant review petition was submitted by the petitioner, notices were issued to the respondents and even in reply to the review petition, it has been stated in Para-4 by the respondents which reads as under:- "That the contents of the Para No. 4 of the writ petition are not disputed to the extent of passing of the order by the Hon'ble Court. However in this regard it is submitted that as per the rules of answering respondent and as per the award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the 20% amount of the award is necessary to be deducted. Further it is [2025:RJ-JP:3605] (4 of 5) [WRW-147/2023] submitted that as per the Award dated 26.06.1998, the amount of payment of Rs.3,34,200/- to be paid to the petitioner and after deducting the amount of 20%, which comes in tune of Rs.66,840/-, to be deposited by the petitioner in the respondent department. More so it is submitted that the amount of Gratuity which is to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent comes in tune of Rs.54,083/-. Meaning thereby after made the calculation the factual position is comes that after calculate the all factors, the petitioner himself is liable to be deposited the rest amount before the answering respondent department. Therefore, as per the present rules of the corporation, and as per the award passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, it is mandatory for the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount in the corporation fund. More so, the estimated amount of Rs.66,840/- was to be deposited in the corporation fund as per 20% of the amount of the award, whereas the petitioner's gratuity amount is approximately comes as Rs.54,083/-, hence the remaining outstanding amount has to be deposited by the petitioner in the corporation fund."

9. It is the admitted case of the respondents that he is liable to deduct 20% of the amount of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hence under these circumstances, the order dated

06.09.2023 passed by this Court is liable to be modified/ clarified.

10. It is clarified that the respondents would be at liberty to deduct 20% of the amount of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from the gratuity amount of the petitioner.

11. With the aforesaid clarification/ modification, the instant application stands disposed of. This order be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:3605] (5 of 5) [WRW-147/2023] Aayush Sharma /47 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J