Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Lal Ghanchi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:26523] (1 of 4) [CW-11984/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11984/2023
Narayan Lal Ghanchi S/o Shri Poona Ram Ghanchi, Aged About
43 Years, R/o Rani Kalan, Tehsil Rani, District Pali (Raj.) At
Present Posted As A Teacher (Grade IIIrd) At Govt. Balika Upper
Primary School, Dhamli, Block Marwar Junction, District Pali
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Deputy Secretary Of
Government Elementary Education Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director,
Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
3. The District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Elementary
Education, District Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Pathak
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
22/08/2023
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:26523] (2 of 4) [CW-11984/2023]
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
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
[2023:RJ-JD:26523] (3 of 4) [CW-11984/2023]
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,
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:26523] (4 of 4) [CW-11984/2023]
9. 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 petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
172-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
