Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Kumar Vyas vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:43727]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19228/2025
Vijay Kumar Vyas S/o Ramesh Chandra Vyas, Aged About 57
Years, Jana Medic, Bhawani Nagar Ward No.1, Udaipur Road,
Banswara, Dist. Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
School Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner (Raj.).
3. The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education
Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.).
4. The Chief District Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha
Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya through
VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
06/10/2025
1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered
by the order dated 05.05.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 8752/2025 (Sunil Kumar Saini Vs. The State of Rajasthan
& Anr.) wherein, the coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the
following order:-
"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
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43727] (2 of 4) [CW-19228/2025]
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 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 Siongh Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 3 rd November, 2014,
holding thus:
"Learned counsel has submitted that a division
bench of thisCourt in Brij Lal Bundel vs. State
and Another - 2007 (1) RLW484 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."
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43727] (3 of 4) [CW-19228/2025]
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 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 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."
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:25:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43727] (4 of 4) [CW-19228/2025]
2. In light of the above, the present writ petition is also
disposed of directing the respondents to decide the representation
of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
3. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
227-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:25:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
