Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Balu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2764 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2764 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/008694]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2023

Balu Ram S/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of House No. 77, Gali No. 2, 3E Chhoti, Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sushil Solanki



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                     Order

05/04/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 in case of Sardar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.: SBCWP No. 9772/2011, decided on 7th August, 2012

and Man Singh Hada and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.:

SBCWP No. 8124/2012, decided on 28th January, 2014.

2. 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

[2023/RJJD/008694] (2 of 3) [CW-2732/2023]

taking note of the cases aforesaid in the case of Ajeet Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 3rd November, 2014,

holding thus:

"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."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at this

stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if the respondents are

directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a

time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within a

period of two weeks.

4. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ

proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address

a comprehensive representation within two weeks hereinafter,

[2023/RJJD/008694] (3 of 3) [CW-2732/2023]

enclosing a copy of the judgment, which has been referred to and

relied upon in support of his claim.

5. 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

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.

6. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if respondents

find the case of the petitioner to be covered by the judgment(s)

aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an undertaking shall be

procured from the petitioner to the effect that his

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, he shall also be liable for restitution of

any benefits/emoluments so received.

7. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the

writ petition stands disposed of.

8. The stay application is also disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 46-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter