Petitioner sought annual grade increments following reinstation from suspension. Bench directed State to decide comprehensive representation within two months, contingent on petitioner submitting rights subservient to cited judgments.
Petitioner directed to submit representation within two weeks; State to decide within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 3) [CW-108/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:849]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 108/2024
Girraj Prasad Saini S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Saini, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 41, Hanuman Vatika Colony, Shekhawat Restaurant Ke Pas, Pushkar Bypass Road, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
| Versus | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | The State | Of | Rajasthan, | Through | The Secretary, |
| Department | Of | Revenue, | Government | Of Rajasthan, | |
| Jaipur. | |||||
| 2. | The District | Colle | ctor, Ajmer. |
| ---- | Respondents | |
|---|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sushil Solanki a/w Ms. Solanki |
Ayushi |
| For Respondent(s) | : |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
08/01/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:849]
[CW-108/2024]
(2 of 3)
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 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 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:849]
[CW-108/2024]
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
41-/Jitender/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to annual grade increments after reinstation from suspension.
Whether the State must decide the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time frame.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sardar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶12
Sardar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 9772/2011
Man Singh Hada and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.Referred¶12
Man Singh Hada and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: SBCWP No. 8124/2012
Brij Lal Bundel Vs. State and Anr.Referred¶13
Brij Lal Bundel Vs. State and Anr.
Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶17
Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Girraj Prasad Saini
The State of Rajasthan
The District Collector, Ajmer
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
