[2025:RJ-JP:31325]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10814/2010 Ram Chandra Niwad, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Sugna Ram, R/o A-21, Gandhi Nagar, Merta City, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director, Head Office RSRTC, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

2. Zonal Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer (Raj.)

3. Cheif Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Beawar Depot, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Jai Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.M. Bairwa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

12/08/2025

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2008 issued by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Beawar, Ajmer (Raj.) whereby the service contract earlier entered into with the petitioner has been terminated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 13.05.2005, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on the conditions mentioned in the appointment order However, without giving any opportunity of hearing and by leveling stigma, the impugned order for termination his services has been passed by the respondent-authority, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice. Such order passed by the respondent-authority is in violation of principle of natural justice and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramraj Gurjar Vs. Rajathan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. 2008 WLC (Rajasthan) UC 485 & Anr. and in the case of Manoj Kumar Vs. The Managing Director & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7487/2010) decided on 07.08.2019.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the order dated 16.12.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his service conditions were governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract and appointment order. Since, the petitioner has violated the terms of contract therefore, vide order dated 16.12.2008, contract has been terminated. The petitioner was not holding any post under the Rules therefore, he was not entitled either for enquiry under the Rules or even any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.

5. I have considered the submissions and examined the record.

6. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on contract basis. Terms and conditions of contract have been mentioned in the appointment order dated 13.05.2005. Initially, the petitioner was appointed for a period of two months however, he was continued thereafter. As per terms and conditions of the contract in the event of irregularities and violations mentioned in the appointment order itself, service of contract between the parties was liable to be terminated. It has been mentioned in order dated 16.12.2008 that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the contract hence, the same has been terminated.

7. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by termination of the contract, he can pursue his contractual rights before the appropriate forum, however, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, being misconceived, for the reasons stated hereinabove. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

(ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU /54