Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Biharilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6333/2022
Biharilal S/o Shri Ram Prasad Bhargav, Aged About 61 Years,
Ward No. 17 (New) Behind Office Of Panchayat Samiti, District
Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner And Secretary Panchayati Raj
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Ratangarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5986/2022
Tek Chand Chauhan S/o Shri Puran Chand, Aged About 62 Years,
R/o Ward No. 18 Near Satu Circle, Taranagar District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner And Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6334/2022
Jagdev Singh S/o Shri Banney Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Village Nua, Tehsil Mandava, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 4) [CW-6333/2022]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner And Secretary, Panchayati Raj
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Churu,
District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
17/05/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset,
submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application
stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court (at Jaipur) in case of Sardar Mal v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 9772/2011, decided on 7 th August,
2012 and Man Singh Hada and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.:
SBCWP No. 8124/2012, decided on 28th January, 2014.
It is further contended that a Division Bench of this Court
has also observed in the case of Brij Lal Bundel Vs. State and Anr.,
that if the order of suspension is revoked and the employee is
reinstated in service, he, as per Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service
Rules, is entitled to annual grade increments. Reference is also
made to the adjudication by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
taking note of the cases aforesaid in the case of Ajeet Singh v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 3rd November, 2014,
holding thus:
(3 of 4) [CW-6333/2022]
"Learned counsel has submitted that a division bench
of this Court in Brij Lal Bundel vs. State and Another
- 2007 (1) RLW 484 has also held that when the
order of suspension is revoked and the employee is
reinstated in service, he, as per Rule 29 of the
Rajasthan Service Rules, becomes entitled to annual
grade increments as the increment has to be drawn
in the matter of course unless withheld. The period of
suspension is normally treated as period spent on
duty for the purpose of pension. If the period is
treated as spent on duty, there would not be break in
service and therefore there is no reason why the
government servant was deprived of annual grade
increments falling due in the suspension period after
his reinstatement. It was held that denial of annual
grade increments in such a scenario would
tantamount to withholding increments, which is a
penalty specified under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, which penalty cannot be
imposed without observing the procedure envisaged
in Rule 16 and 17 of the CCA Rules."
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at
this stage, the petitioners will be satisfied if the State respondents
are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within
a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within a
period of two weeks.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ
proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to
address a comprehensive representation within two weeks
hereinafter, enclosing a copy of the judgment, which has been
referred to and relied upon in support of their claim.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid
period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide
the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with
(4 of 4) [CW-6333/2022]
law as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than
three months from the date of receipt of the representation along
with a certified copy of this order.
Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if
respondents find the case of the petitioners to be covered by the
judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an
undertaking shall be procured from the petitioners to the effect
that their rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate of
the judgment(s) aforesaid and in case the same is reversed or
modified in any manner, they shall also be liable for restitution of
any benefits/emoluments so received.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
The stay application is also disposed of.
The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
47to49-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
