Disposed

Raghuveer Singh Bhati v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2024CW/103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought annual grade increments for a period spent under suspension after reinstatement, relying on earlier High Court decisions. Counsel sought only that the representation be decided; the court closed the writ petition directing the State to consider and decide it by reasoned order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ proceedings closed with direction that representation filed within two weeks be decided by reasoned speaking order within three months; any benefits subject to undertaking for restitution if reli

Raghuveer Singh Bhati Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

(1 of 3) [CW-103/2024]

¶2

[2024:RJ-JD:848]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 103/2024

¶5

Raghuveer Singh Bhati S/o Sh. Nathu Singh Bhati, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 15A, New Geeta Colony, Fay Sagar Road, District Ajmer.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

			Versus
1.	The State	Of	Rajasthan,	Through	The Secretary,
	Department	Of	Revenue,	Government	Of Rajasthan,
	Jaipur.
2.	The District	Colle	ctor, Ajmer.

¶8

	----	Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sushil Solanki a/w Ms. Solanki	Ayushi
For Respondent(s)	:

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

08/01/2024

¶12

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 (at Jaipur) 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.

¶13

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

[2024:RJ-JD:848]

[CW-103/2024]

(2 of 3)

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:

¶18

“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.”

¶19

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 they are ready and willing to address within a period of two weeks.

¶20

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address

[2024:RJ-JD:848]

[CW-103/2024]

(3 of 3)

a comprehensive representation within two weeks hereinafter, enclosing a copy of the judgment, which has been referred to and relied upon in support of their claim.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 their 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, they shall also be liable for restitution of any benefits/emoluments so received.

¶27

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶30

38-/Jitender/

Raghuveer Singh Bhati v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer Singh Bhati v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Heera Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Kumar Lodha Vs the State of Rajasthan

Girraj Prasad Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan