Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY an order dated 29.10.1986, The Petitioner by an order dated 29.10.1986, was removed from services of the Respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Validity of the order aforesaid was challenged by way of filing a civil suit before the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Jaipur city and that was decreed on 29.4.1989. The Petitioner was reinstated in service as his removal was declared bad, being in violation of principle of natural justice. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings afresh and that resulted into order dated 25.7.2005, removing him from service again.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by the same, he preferred a petition for writ before this Court and that came to be rejected. He then preferred an appeal before Division Bench of this Court but, that too was dismissed as withdrawn without examining merits of the case, in view of the fact that the Petitioner desired to agitate his cause by way of submitting representation to the competent authority. The representation thereafter was submitted to the competent authority and that came to be rejected on 22.11.2007. As per the Petitioner, after rejection of the representation, certain other employees of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation submitted representations to Chief Minister on 27.12.2007 and those were forwarded to the Managing Director of the Corporation. The managing Director, by acting upon the representations so submitted, reinstated those employees in service without making payment on back -wages, relating to the period, they remained out of employment. The Petitioner also submitted a representation to the General Manager, head quarters, but no action is yet taken by the authority competent. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred seeking a direction for Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner and decide the same.
(3.) HAVING considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ, as a matter of fact ,the Petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary action and as a consequent thereto, he was removed from service. The order of removal has already been affirmed by this Court, on rejection of the petition for writ. Before the Division Bench, Petitioner desired to withdraw the writ petition, accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal, clarified that it has not examined merits of the case. The Respondents after withdrawal of the appeal, thoroughly considered the representations submitted by the Petitioner and rejected the same on merits. Now the Petitioner wants to get a staled matter reopen on the count, that in some of the cases, the corporation has reinstated some of the employees who were removed from service. No particulars of such employees are given by the Petitioners and parity is claimed without having any foundation, it is also not clear that whether the employees said to be reinstated were removed from service as a consequent of disciplinary action of they were terminated from service simplicitor. In these circumstances, I am not at all inclined to interfere with the cause sought to be agitated.;