BY THE COURT:

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was working as a Civil Assistant Surgeon appointed as such on 4.11.1986. He was placed under suspension upon a criminal complaint filed against him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He faced the trial in the competent Court of learned Sessions Judge, ACD, Udaipur and was ultimately acquitted vide order Annex.2 dtd.10.12.2007 and, the said acquittal order was upheld by this Court while dismissing the leave to appeal No.62/2008 – State of Rajasthan Vs. dr. Prabhat Kadawat filed by the State Government on 31.3.3008 and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP No.5008/2009 filed by the State on 6.4.2009. These orders have been placed on the record.

2. The Appointing Authority thereafter passed the order Annex.5 dated 25.2.2008 reinstating the petitioner back in service revoking the suspension order dated 8.5.2002 and by another order, Annex.5 of the same date 25.2.2008 and Annex.6 dtd.13.5.2008 purportedly under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules while treating the said period of absence during suspension period as continuity in service, the respondent -Dy. Secretary of the Department of Personnel however directed that the petitioner will not be entitled to any difference of full pay and salary for the said period.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this petition in this Court on 7.3.2011 and upon issuance of notices, the respondent – State have filed reply to the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Deelip Kawadia urged that there was no justification for the respondents to withhold the full salary and other allowances payable to the petitioner for the period of suspension, once the competent Court had acquitted the present petitioner from the said criminal charge against him even though giving the benefit of doubt as the other similarly situated persons by the same authority were given the benefit of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension upon the reinstatement, once they were acquitted by the competent Court. He submitted that in the writ petition an specific averment has been made with regard to one Meghraj Regar, Blocl Development Officer (Assistant Engineer, Irrigation) about full payment of salary and allowances upon acquittal. No reply or rebuttal of the same has been given by the respondent – State in its reply filed before this Court. He produced before this court another order of one Bachchu Singh Meena, RAS working as Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, who also was similarly acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the competent Court and thereafter was paid full salary and allowances for the period of suspension upon his reinstatement. Mr. Deelip Kawadia therefore submitted that there was no justification for denying the similar benefit of the present petitioner, as no separate and specific reason has been assigned by the respondents in denying the full salary and allowances to the present petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Kusum Rao submitted that since there was no full exoneration of the present petitioner in the criminal trial in anticorruption matter, Rule 54(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules permitted the competent Authority to give only the proportionate pay and allowances for the period of absence during suspension and therefore the impugned order cannot be faulted. However, the learned counsel for the respondents was unable to assign any cogent reasons for different treatment meted out to other similarly situated persons who were also acquitted in their respective criminal trial, giving them the benefit of doubt by the competent court.

5. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the record.

6. Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules relevant for the present purpose is quoted below for ready reference :

“Rule 54. Reinstatement :(1) When a Government servant wh