A person under suspension is entitled to annual grade increments and selection grade unless a disciplinary action has been taken against him or a charge sheet has been served.

1. - Petitioner who is working as LDC in the District Treasury, Alwar, was placed under suspension by order dated 14.1.1987 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. He was however, reinstated in service on 2.2.88. He has stated that no enquiry has been initiated against him for last 4 years, in as much as no notice of enquiry either under Rule 16 or under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been served upon him. The grade increments, which fell due to the petitioner in the month of December, 1987, December, 1988, December, 1989 and December 1990 have not been released. Moreover, he has not been given the benefit of selection grade in the cadre of LDC whereas the other persons who are junior to him have been given this grade vide order dated 14.3.1990. Petitioner made representations on 16.10.1989, 30.1.1990, 23.3.1990 31.1.1991 and 26.2.1991 for grant of annual grade increments and for grant of selection grade. In respect of annual grade increments, the District Treasury Officer, Alwar has informed the petitioner vide letter dated 6.7.90 that as per the decision of the Collector which has been sent by the Collector to the District Treasury Officer on 19.6.1990 the annual grade increments cannot be relased in favour of the petitioner till a decision regarding the period of suspension is taken. Petitioner served a notice for demand of justice on 23.2.1991 through his counsel, but no relief has been given to him.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 1.5.91 & notice was given to the respondents. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was given 6 weeks time to file reply on 2.8.91. Today the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate states that reply has not been prepared and she is not in a position to file the same. However, on the basis of the record, which is in her possession, she has stated that the charge sheet for enquiry under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules has been issued to the petitioner on 2.5.1991.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that denial of annual grade increments to the petitioner only on the ground that no decision had been taken regarding regularisation of the period of suspension is wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional. He has referred to the judgment of Kan Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1989 (1) R.L.R. 111 and submitted that the Division Bench of the Court has already held that even during the period of suspension, a person is entitled to annual grade increments because suspension under Rule 13 of 1958 Rules is not a punishment.

4. No order for withholding of annual gradements of the petitioner has been passed on the basis of a disciplinary action taken against him. In the absence of any such order, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his annual grade increments. He further submitted that merely on the basis of contemplation of an enquiry, he could not have been denied the benefit of selection grade after completion of requisite period of service. The fact that persons junior to him have been given the benefits without consideration of the case of the petitioner, amounts to discrimination.

5. Learned Deputy Government Advocate on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is facing inquiry for serious charges. The charge sheet has now been issued by the competent authority and, therefore, he cannot be given annual grade increments or selection grade.

6. I have considered the rival submissions. In my opinion the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Clearly the petitioner had remained under suspension for a period between 14.7.1987 to 2.2.1988. He was not under suspension thereafter. No charge sheet was given to him for a period of more than 4 years after the issuance of order of suspension. Therefore there could be no justification for with holding annual grade increments, which fell to the petitioner in the month of December 1988, Dec. 1989 and December, 1990. Even for the period of suspension, the petitione