Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Megh Singh Jatav vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22940]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9426/2025
Megh Singh Jatav S/o Shri Churaman Jatav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o 154, Jatav Basti, Ballabhgarh, Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ayushi Solanki
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
13/05/2025
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
[2025:RJ-JD:22940] (2 of 3) [CW-9426/2025]
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 State respondents are
directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a
time frame, which the petitioner 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:22940] (3 of 3) [CW-9426/2025]
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, accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
7-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
