Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Prasad Saini vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47977]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21765/2025
Jagdish Prasad Saini S/o Late Sohanram Saini, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Village Gajsar, Tehsil And District Churu, Presently
Posted As Ldc In The Office Of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Kums)
Ratangarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Agriculture Marketing Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Director, Directorate Of Agriculture Marketing
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ratangarh
District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/11/2025
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
07.08.2012 and Man Singh Hada and Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.: SBCWP No. 8124/2012, decided on
28.01.2014.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:54:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47977] (2 of 3) [CW-21765/2025]
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 State respondents
are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:54:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47977] (3 of 3) [CW-21765/2025]
time frame, which they are 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 also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
228-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:54:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
