HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 786/2020 Phool Chand Gurjar S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Gurjar and ors.

----Petitioners Versus Shri Sandeep Varma and ors.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Vaish For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Abhishek Mewara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

22/01/2026

1. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the issue of disobedience of the directions by the High Court in the final order dated 12.09.2018, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1920/2001 in respect of considering the case of petitioners for regularization under the Scheme of RSRTC dated 31.03.1995.

2. It is not in dispute that the order dated 12.09.2018 has been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 31.01.2020 as also the Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst, by and on behalf of the RSRTC, has also been decided vide order dated 07.04.2021 and the directions have been sustained.

3. Respondents-RSRTC, in the process of making compliance of the order dated 12.09.2018, particularly in context of considering the case of petitioners for regularization as per Scheme dated 31.03.1995, has passed an order dated 19.01.2024 which has been placed on record as Annx. R/1 along with misc. application dated 30.06.2025. A bare perusal of the order dated 19.01.2024 reveals that regularization of petitioners has been declined merely on the ground that petitioners did not join in furtherance to the order of reinstatement dated 14.03.2001. It has not been considered as to whether petitioners are liable to be regularized under the Scheme dated 31.03.1995, assuming them to be deemed in service in terms of award dated 20.02.1996.

4. We find that in the order dated 12.09.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, more particularly in para No.8, there are clear and explicit directions that “the respondents would take steps for considering case of petitioners in terms of said Scheme dated 31.03.1995 for the purpose of regularization as the petitioners will be deemed to be in service in terms of the award dated 20.02.1996 (wrongly mentioned as “20.20.1996”)”.

5. Moreso, it is noteworthy that the order of reinstatement dated 14.03.2001, passed by RSRTC in furtherance to the award dated 20.02.1996, too was held illegal and quashed and further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well while disposing of the Special Leave Petition of RSRTC vide order dated 07.04.2021 has made it clear that “needless to say that the direction of the High Court to consider for regularization under the Scheme dated 31.03.1995 can apply only to those who may have rejoined service after the order of reinstatement, passed by the Labour Court”.

6. Thus, there is no cloud of any doubt that the issue of regularization of the petitioners was/is to be considered, deeming the petitioners to be in service in terms of the award dated 20.02.1996 passed by the Labour Court and within the scope of Scheme dated 31.03.1995.

7. The order dated 19.01.2024, declining regularization of petitioners, has certainly not been passed within that scope and it is apparent that RSRTC has deliberately flouted the directions of High Court, to consider the case of writ petitioners for regularization within scope of Scheme dated 31.03.1995, treating them to be continue in service in terms of Labour Court award dated 20.02.1996; hence, the concerned Officers of RSRTC, who were liable to comply with directions/order dated 12.09.2018, are apparently guilty for committing contempt of court. The present Managing Director, RSRTC and Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur Depot too are responsible to look into the matter and not following directions of High Court.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-contemnors, prays for some time.

9. The present Managing Director-RSRTC as well as Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur Depot, who are presently holding the post, shall remain present in pe