Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jitendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:49030) on 13 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:49030]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
                      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18234/2019

     Jitendra Singh S/o Randheer Singh Aeron through his Legal
     Representatives:-
     1/1 Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Jitendra Kumar
     1/2. Manish Kumar Aeron S/o Jitendra Kumar
     1/3. Jayesh Singh Aeron S/o                  Jitendra Kumar all R/o Ward
     No.25, , Indra Chowk,              Station Road, Hanumangarh Town,
     Tehsil And District Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
     1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
            Of Personnel (A-3) Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
     2.     The   Additional         Commissioner          (Administration),     Head
            Office, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan,
            Jaipur.
     3.     The   Commissioner,            Commercial           Taxes    Department,
            Rajasthan Jaipur.
     4.     The Director, Directorate Pension Department, Rajasthan,
            Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents


  For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu
                                      Mr. Pradeep Singh Khosa
  For Respondent(s)              :    Ms. Navya Sharma
                                      Mr. Nilesh Choudhary
                                      Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

13/11/2025

1. The present writ petition has been instituted seeking

quashing of the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 and issuance of

a direction to the respondents to release all retiral dues along with

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49030] (2 of 7) [CW-18234/2019]

consequential benefits. It is pertinent to note at the outset that

the original petitioner has since expired on 28.07.2021; a death

certificate dated 13.08.2021 issued by the Directorate of

Economics & Statistics, Ganganagar is placed on record, and the

legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have been duly

brought on record, assuming the mantle to prosecute the writ

petition in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner-deceased

commenced his service career as Inspector Grade-II in the Excise

& Taxation Department vide order dated 04.01.1962 and was

subsequently elevated to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer on 20.07.1993. While performing duties as Additional

Commercial Taxes Officer, an FIR No.19/1992 was registered

against him on the complaint of Shri Madan Lal, invoking Sections

7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, along with Section 201 IPC. Consequent

thereto, the petitioner-deceased was placed under suspension by

order dated 10.03.1992.

2.1. The petitioner-deceased superannuated from service on

31.01.1996 while the suspension order remained in force. During

the period of suspension, he was sanctioned 50% subsistence

allowance, which was subsequently enhanced to 75% in

consonance with the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Thereafter,

the petitioner-deceased was acquitted of all criminal charges by

the Special Judge, ACB Court, Sri Ganganagar, through judgment

dated 09.02.2018, the acquittal being grounded on the benefit of

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49030] (3 of 7) [CW-18234/2019]

doubt, arising from the prosecution's failure to adduce credible

evidence.

2.2. Following acquittal, the petitioner-deceased submitted

representations dated 08.03.2018 and 22.06.2018 requesting

release of his withheld retiral benefits, including gratuity, leave

encashment, pay fixation, grade increments, full pension, and

other consequential entitlements. Notwithstanding repeated

representations, the respondents failed to accede to the claims.

Pension continued to be computed on the basis of 75%

subsistence allowance, without granting annual increments from

1992, revised pay-scale benefits, or promotional advantages

already accorded to junior employees.

2.3. Instead of addressing the legitimate claims, the respondents

issued the impugned order dated 29.10.2018, communicated vide

letter dated 14.11.2018, holding that since the petitioner-

deceased had been acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, he

was not entitled to full salary for the suspension period, except the

subsistence allowance already disbursed. The order, however,

recorded that the suspension period would be counted for all

service-related purposes. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner-deceased filed the present writ petition, which now

continues through his legal representatives.

3. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the

petitioner-deceased contends that the suspension, which

commenced on 02.03.1992, arose solely due to registration of a

criminal case. The petitioner-deceased retired on 31.01.1996

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49030] (4 of 7) [CW-18234/2019]

while still under suspension, yet none of his retiral dues, including

gratuity, leave encashment, commutation, annual increments, 6th

Pay Commission benefits, or promotional pay scale, were released.

Such omission is arbitrary, violative of the Pension Rules, 1996,

and constitutes a manifest infringement of the right to equality

enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that upon retirement, the

suspension automatically ceased to have any legal effect,

necessitating refixation of pension on the basis of full salary with

all admissible increments and benefits. The respondents, however,

illegally computed pension on 75% subsistence allowance, an act

entirely devoid of statutory authority. Though the petitioner-

deceased was acquitted of the criminal charges on benefit of

doubt, under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, such

acquittal entitles an employee to full salary for the suspension

period, particularly in the absence of any departmental

proceedings. The impugned order dated 29.10.2018 is therefore

unsustainable. It is also submitted that despite repeated

representations, the respondents failed to act, violating principles

of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nathu Lal Jaroli v. State of

Rajasthan (SBCWP No.10394/2011, decided on

03.01.2025), wherein identical issues were decided in favour of

the employee, entitling the petitioner-deceased to similar relief.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

contends that the writ petition is devoid of any legal merit. It is

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49030] (5 of 7) [CW-18234/2019]

submitted that the suspension period of the petitioner-deceased

has already been regularized through a duly issued order, leaving

no surviving cause of grievance. The respondents assert that all

actions were taken strictly in accordance with statutory mandates,

and no enforceable right of the petitioner-deceased has been

infringed. Consequently, the writ petition is allegedly misconceived

and not maintainable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

examined the entire record, including the impugned order,

relevant service rules, and judgments relied upon.

5.1. At the outset, it is evident that the petitioner-deceased was

placed under suspension solely due to the registration of a

criminal case. He retired on 31.01.1996 while still under

suspension, and none of his lawful retiral benefits including

gratuity, leave encashment, commutation, annual grade

increments, 6th Pay Commission benefits, or promotional scale

were disbursed. This omission is palpably arbitrary, contravenes

the Pension Rules, 1996, and constitutes a clear violation of Article

14 of the Constitution.

5.2. Upon retirement, the suspension order ceased to have legal

effect. Nonetheless, the respondents unlawfully computed the

petitioner-deceased's pension on the basis of 75% subsistence

allowance rather than recalculating it on the basis of full salary

with all admissible increments and enhancements. Such

computation is devoid of statutory sanction and exceeds the

authority conferred under the service rules.

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49030] (6 of 7) [CW-18234/2019]

5.3. The acquittal of the petitioner-deceased in the criminal case,

albeit on benefit of doubt, entitles him under Rule 54 of the

Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, to full salary for the suspension

period, particularly since no departmental proceedings were ever

initiated against him. The impugned order dated 29.10.2018,

which denies full pay merely on the basis that the acquittal was on

benefit of doubt, is therefore legally untenable, vitiated by non-

application of mind, statutory non-conformity, and manifest

inequity.

5.4. The repeated and detailed representations of the petitioner-

deceased, which remain unacted upon, amount to a violation of

the principles of natural justice and a dereliction of administrative

responsibility by the respondents.

5.5. Importantly, the instant writ petition squarely falls within the

ratio decidendi of the judgment in Nathu Lal Jaroli (Supra),

wherein this Court held that:

(i) Acquittal on benefit of doubt must be treated as an affirmation

of non-culpability;

(ii) Denial of arrears on that ground is arbitrary and inequitable;

and

(iii) Rule 54 entitles an employee to restoration of full pay and

service benefits as if suspension had never occurred.

6. In view of the foregoing and following the precedent in

Nathu Lal Jaroli (Supra), the present writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 29.10.2018 is hereby quashed. The

respondents are directed to:

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49030] (7 of 7) [CW-18234/2019]

a. Recalculate all dues for the entire period of suspension on the

basis of the petitioner-deceased's full salary as admissible at that

time, inclusive of annual grade increments, 6th Pay Commission

scale, and promotional pay scale; and

b. Release the said dues to the legal representatives of the

petitioner-deceased with interest, in accordance with the relevant

service rules.

7. All pending applications, including any stay applications,

stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 169-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:32:43 PM)