Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Salman Ali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22393) on 9 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:22393]                    (1 of 3)                       [CW-9302/2025]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      AT JODHPUR.
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9302/2025

Salman Ali S/o Inayat Ali, Aged About 38 Years, At Present
Constable Driver C.o. Office, Hathipole, District Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
         Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur.
3.       The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range Udaipur.
4.       The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Devendra Sanwalot




         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

09/05/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset,

submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition

stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Sardar Mal vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9772/2011,

decided on 07.08.2012 and Man Singh Hada and Ors. vs. State

of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

8124/2012, decided on 28.01.2014.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:22393] (2 of 3) [CW-9302/2025]

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 03.11.2014, 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

[2025:RJ-JD:22393] (3 of 3) [CW-9302/2025]

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