Allowed

S.S Mehta v. Raj Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Niga

Rajasthan HC16 May 2014CW/5188/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition held that employee fully exonerated in departmental proceedings is entitled to full pay allowances and increments for suspension period under Regulation 41(2) Rules of 1962 quashing orders denying same.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to release pay allowances for suspension period with interest at 9% p.a. and grant Annual Grade Increments.

S.S Mehta Vs Raj Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Niga — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5188/2007 S.S.Mehta Vs. R.R.V.P.N.Ltd. & Anr.

Date of Order

:::: 16.05.2014

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr. Sunil Samdariya, for the petitioner. Dr. Saugath Roy, for the respondents.

¶10

¶11

The petitioner, in the instant writ application, aggrieved of the order dated 7^th July, 2006 (Annexure-5) wherein the period of suspension of three months eight days of the petitioner has been treated as period spent on duty for all practical purposes but for pay and allowances and has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):

¶12

“(i) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing & setting aside the order dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure 5) to the extend it denies full salary and allowances & the order dated 13.06.2007 (Annexure 7) and direct the respondents to pay full salary and allowances for the period of suspension from 18.11.2005 to 22.2.2006 along with interest @ 24% p.a.

¶13

(ii) to issue an appropriate writ/order direction directing the respondents to restore the Annual Grade Increments from the date they accrued and make the payment of difference of salary and allowances along with interest @ 24% p.a. and all other consequential reliefs;

¶14

¶15

(iii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may also granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

(iv) award exemplary cost against the respondents.”

¶17

Briefly, the indispensable materials facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 18^th November, 2005 (Annexure-1) and was allowed subsistence allowances admissible under the Rules. Departmental proceedings were initiated as is evident from the charge-sheet dated 27^th January, 2006. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 22^nd February, 2006 without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings ultimately resulted into final order dated 7^th July, 2006 wherein the petitioner was exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The period of suspension was regulated in terms that the period of suspension would be treated as period spent on duty for all practical purposes but for pay and allowances. The petitioner was preferred an appeal against the order depriving of him pay and allowances for the period during suspension which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order

¶18

¶19

dated 13^th June, 2007.

¶20

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (herein after referred to as the 'Nigam', for short), has filed its counter affidavit supporting the impugned order dated 7^th July, 2006. The learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam reiterating the pleaded facts, has argued that the disciplinary authority taking a lenient view exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him and regulated the period of suspension being very much conscious of mandate of Regulation 51(2) of the R.S.E.B.Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (herein after referred to as the 'Regulations of 1962, for short).

¶21

It is further emphasized that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid keeping in view what has been contemplated under Regulations 41(1)(b) of the Rules of 1962. According to the learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam, the disciplinary authority being conscious of the nature of misconduct has rightly regulated the period of suspension and it was for the reason that a lenient view was adopted and therefore, there is no illegality in withholding the actual pay and allowances for the period of suspension. The writ

¶22

¶23

application, therefore, merits rejection without any substance.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the matter has been dealt with as Regulation 41 of 1962 which reads thus:

¶26

“41.Reinstatement after suspension, removal or dismissal:

¶27

When an employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specified order.

¶28

(a) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty, and

¶29

(b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

¶30

¶31

Where such competent authority holds that the employee have been fully exonerated or in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the employee shall be given the full pay and dearness allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.”

¶32

A glance at Regulation 41(2) of the Rules of 1962

¶33

would reveal that in case the employee is fully

¶34

¶35

exonerated, the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended.

¶36

Therefore, once the petitioner was exonerated his case is fully covered by the mandate of Regulation 41(2) of the Rules of 1962 which would entitle him to pay and allowances for the period of suspension as well. So far as the full amount of increment for the period of suspension is concerned, the matter is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Division Bench of this Court in Brij Lal Bundel Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.-(91); RLR 2006 (3), 661. The principles underlying and some what and similar controversy filed for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in Brij Lal Bundel's case with reference to deferment of increments, the Division Bench while after carefully scrutiny of the matter observed thus:

¶37

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

¶38

The impugned orders dated 7.7.2006 (Annexure 5) and 13.06.2007( Annexure 7) are quashed and set aside to the extent of salary of allowances to the petitioner for the period of suspension.

¶39

¶40

The respondents are directed to release the pay and allowances for the period of suspension with interest @ 9% p.a. As a consequence, the petitioner would also be entitled for Annual Grade Increments irrespective of the period of suspension.

¶41

All the consequential benefits may be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶43

Pcg

¶44

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, P.A.

S.S Mehta v. Raj Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Niga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S Mehta v. Raj Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Niga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chagan Singh Vs U S R T C and Anr.

Dr Adarsh Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rinku Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Krishna Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Manoj Choudhary and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs R R v P N Ltd, Jaipur