Disposed

Rajendra Kumar Namdev v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2018CW/5702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the petitioner's claim to annual grade increments upon reinstatement after suspension. Relying on precedents regarding service rules and the continuity of service during suspension, the single judge directed the State to decide the petitioner's representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed two weeks to address a comprehensive representation; State directed to decide within three months.

Rajendra Kumar Namdev Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 5702/2018

¶3

Rajendra Kumar Namdev S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Namdev, By Caste Namdev, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Moter Market Aklera, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) At Present R/o H.no. 6, New Ahinsa Nagar, Chamtikhera Road, District Chittorgarh. (Raj) At Present Posted As J.en (Htm) O/o A.en (Htm) Avvnl, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)

¶7

The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)

¶8

The Secretary, (Administration), Avvnl, Ajmer. (Raj)

¶9

The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Makarwali Road, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer.(Raj)

¶10

The Superintending Engineer (O/m) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Patel Circle, Udaipur (Raj).

¶11

The Assistant Engineer (Htm) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur. (Raj.)

¶12

The Director (Finance), Vidyut Bhawan, Panch Sheel Nagar, Avvnl, Ajmer. (Raj)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Pathak For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶16

Order

¶17

15/03/2018

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-5702/2018]

¶21

stands resolved in view of the adjudication made a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Sardar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 9772/2011, decided on 7^th August, 2012 and Man Singh Hada and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: SBCWP No. 8124/2012, decided on 28^th January, 2014.

¶22

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 3^rd November, 2014, holding thus:

¶23

“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.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-5702/2018]

¶27

time frame, which he is ready and willing.

¶28

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner is allowed to address a comprehensive representation within two weeks hereinafter, enclosing a copy of the judgment, which has referred to and relied upon in support of his claim.

¶29

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.

¶30

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶31

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶32

SS/261

Rajendra Kumar Namdev v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Namdev v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Prabhu Dayal and Another Vs Ram Bilas

Subhash Lalwani and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Arti Jain Vs D B Gupta and Ors.

Kailash and Ors. Vs Nandram

Om Prakash Merotha Vs State Education Dep Anr.

Gopal Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.