SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Raj) 1636

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.
Jagdish Narayan Nagarwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Social Welfare Secretariat, Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 175 of 2010.
Decided On : 26-07-2010

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:H.R. Kumawat, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.D. Khaspuria, Advocate.

Prolonged suspension without a framed charge may lead to the setting aside of the suspension order and entitlement to full pension on a provisional basis.

Headnote:

Suspension - District Probationary and Social Welfare Officer - Provisional Pension

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a District Probationary and Social Welfare Officer, was suspended due to a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite the absence of a framed charge, the petitioner, who retired during the suspension, was receiving only 75% provisional pension.

Finding of the Court:

The court stayed the suspension order and directed the respondents to pay the full pension on a provisional basis, citing the judgment in Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Issues: Prolonged suspension without a framed charge and its impact on pension entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the absence of a framed charge and the petitioner's retirement during suspension, leading to the decision to stay the suspension order and grant full pension on a provisional basis.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay the full pension on a provisional basis and stayed the suspension order.

JUDGMENT

1. - Counsel for the petitioner submits that while holding the post of District Probationary and Social Welfare Officer, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 2.7.1996 (Ann. 4) on account of criminal case being registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Counsel further submits that FIR was registered against the petitioner on 9.7.1996 and charge-sheet was filed on 9.4.1997 but still charge has not been framed against the petitioner so far.

3. Counsel further submits that since the petitioner stood retired in November, 1996 while he was under suspension. He is getting only 75% as provisional pension. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment delivered in Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) and submits that on account prolonged suspension where there is no fault of the delinquent, order of suspension has been set aside.

4. Counsel for the respondent wants time to file reply.

5. Heard, Admit. Fresh notices need not be issued since respondents are duly served.

6. As regards interim relief, without expressing any opinion on the merits, in the meanwhile, further operation of the order of suspension dated 2.7.1996 (Ann. 4) shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to pay full pension on provisional basis after being duly revised under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, during pendency of the writ petition, till further orders.Direction Given as Above.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top