Rajasthan High Court Takes Stern Action Against RSRTC Officials
In a significant development from Jaipur, a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court has issued summons to the top officials of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) for alleged contempt of court. The bench, comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Sandeep Taneja, has directed the managing director and chief managing director of RSRTC to appear personally before the court on February 3.
Background of the Contempt Petition
The contempt petition was filed by Phool Chand Gurjar and other employees, stemming from RSRTC's failure to comply with the High Court's final order dated September 12, 2018. In that order, the court had directed RSRTC to consider the petitioners' cases for regularisation under the scheme dated March 31, 1995, treating them as deemed to be in service as per a labour court award from February 20, 1996.
The legal journey of this case has been extensive:
- The single judge bench order of 2018 was affirmed by a division bench on January 31, 2020.
- The Supreme Court later sustained this decision, disposing of RSRTC's Special Leave Petition on April 7, 2021, and ordering compliance through regularisation of the petitioners.
Court's Observations on RSRTC's Non-Compliance
Despite these clear judicial directives, RSRTC issued an order on January 19, 2024, declining the regularisation of the petitioners. The court noted that a close examination of this 2024 order revealed that regularisation was rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not join service pursuant to a reinstatement order dated March 14, 2001.
The bench pointed out a critical flaw in RSRTC's reasoning: the reinstatement order of 2001 had already been declared illegal and quashed, and therefore could not be legally relied upon to deny regularisation. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's clarification that consideration for regularisation under the 1995 scheme must be strictly in line with the High Court's earlier directions.
Deliberate Flouting of Judicial Directives
In its order passed on January 22, the division bench held that RSRTC had "deliberately flouted" the binding directions of the court. The bench stated that the concerned officers were apparently guilty of contempt for their actions.
During the hearing, senior counsel RN Mathur, appearing for RSRTC, requested additional time. However, the court remained firm in its stance, directing the officers to remain present in person before the High Court on the specified date.
This case highlights the ongoing challenges in implementing labour laws and judicial orders in public sector undertakings. The court's stern action underscores the importance of adherence to legal directives, particularly in matters affecting employee rights and regularisation under long-standing schemes.
