Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Om Prakash Agal vs The Director (2026:Rj-Jd:14663)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4794 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4794 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Om Prakash Agal vs The Director (2026:Rj-Jd:14663) on 28 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14663]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6929/2026

Om Prakash Agal S/o Shiv Narayan Agal, Aged About 56 Years,
R/o 29, Chitrakoot Vihar, Sector 14, Udaipur, Rajasthan Presently
Posted As Senior Mines Foreman, Directorate Mines And Geology
Rajasthan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The    Director,       Department        Of     Mines     And   Geology,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
2.       The Additional Director (Administration), Department Of
         Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Ms. Deepika Soni
For Respondent(s)           :     --



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

28/03/2026

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 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.

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

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:40:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14663] (2 of 3) [CW-6929/2026]

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 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

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:40:06 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14663] (3 of 3) [CW-6929/2026]

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 9-Samvedana/-

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:40:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter