Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
AJIT SINGH, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Petitioners
Vs.
Dilip Kumar Dewani & Ors.– Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1255/2014, 1337/2014, 1534/2014, 15/2015, 18/2015, 56/2015
Decided on : 3.2.2016
SUSPENSION - REINSTATEMENT - PAY AND ALLOWANCES - INCREMENTS - SELECTION GRADE - RULE 54 RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES - INTERPRETATION - SUSPENSION NOT WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED - NO AUTOMATIC ENTITLEMENT TO INCREMENTS AND SELECTION GRADE DURING SUSPENSION - COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO DECIDE AFTER REINSTATEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the order of the Single Bench directing the grant of the benefit of second and third selection scale including the period of suspension as well as the revision of pay scale to the petitioner therein deeming him to be throughout in service. The arrears were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the other cases, the Single Bench has directed the respondents/writ petitioners to be eligible for the grant of the annual grade increments even during the period of suspension which had been revoked.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules categorically provides that unless the Government servant has been fully exonerated or his suspension is found to be wholly unjustified, the pay and allowances during the period of absence as well as how the period of absence is to be treated, has to be decided by the competent authority. Until and unless the competent authority decides as to how the period of suspension is to be reckoned, there cannot be any assumption that on reinstatement of the suspended employee, he would automatically be entitled to the benefit of the entire service during the period of suspension as if he was on duty throughout this period.
Issues: Whether the respondents are entitled to the grant of annual grade increments and other benefits including selection grade during the period of suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and held that it contemplates the grant of pay and allowances as well as how the period of suspension is to be treated. In terms of Rule 54(1), the competent authority after the reinstatement of the employee, shall pass a specific order relating to the pay and allowances for the period of absence and whether the said period has to be treated as period spent on duty. Rule 54(2) provides that full pay and dearness allowance shall be payable to the employee in case the competent authority is of the view that the employee has been fully exonerated or his suspension was wholly unjustified. Rule 54(3) refers to other situations which do not involve full exoneration of the employee or the period of suspension is not found to be wholly justified and provides that in such cases it would be for the competent authority to prescribe such proportion of pay and dearness allowance as it would deem fit.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the Single Bench were set aside. The court directed the appellants/State of Rajasthan to take all necessary steps to expedite the trials in the cases involving the respondents.
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
As these appeals raise a common question of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1255 of 2014. The challenge has been made to the order of the Single Bench dated 13.05.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20270 of 2013 whereby while allowing the writ petition, the appellants/respondents therein were directed to grant the benefit of second and third selection scale including the period of suspension as well as the revision of pay scale to the petitioner therein deeming him to be throughout in service. The arrears were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the other cases, the Single Bench has directed the respondents/writ petitioners to be eligible for the grant of the annual grade increments even during the period of suspension which had been revoked.
3. The respondent herein namely Dilip Kumar Dewani was suspended on 22.03.2004 due to his arrest for offences under sections 420, 468, 469, 471 and 120B IPC. Vide order dated 26.11.2012, his suspension was revoked subject to the outcome of pending criminal proceedings. In other appeals, similar details of the respondents/writ petitioners along with the date of suspension, reinstatement as well as the offences wherein they are facing trial as furnished by learned Additional Advocate General, are reproduced as under:
S. No. Case No.
Title Date of Suspension Date of Reinstatement Offence u/s
1. SAW No.1337/14 State vs.
1. Dharam Singh s/o Shri Munshi Singh (Constable)
2. Dharam Singh s/o Shri Ramswaroop (Constable) 15.5.2006
(i) 15.3.2000
(ii) 23.6.2009
11.1.2011
(i) 24.4.2009
(ii) 4.1.2010
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act.
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act. 120B IPC.
2. SAW No.1534/14 State vs.
1. Man Singh Hada (ASI)
2. Pawan Kumar Nagar (ASI)
3. Hansraj (ASI)
4. Irfan (Constable)
5. Prabhu Dayal (ASI)
6. Om Prakash (ASI) 19.4.2008
15.2.2007
7.8.2002
6.1.2006
12.2.2002
11.5.2005
7.6.2010
7.6.2010
11.6.2010
28.12.2010
8.6.2010
8.6.2010 7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act. 120B, 201 IPC.
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act. 120B IPC.
3. SAW No.15/2015 State vs. Sanwar Mal (Head Constable)
06.11.06
25.5.2011 7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
4. SAW No.18/2015 State vs.
1. Birbal Singh (Head Constable)
2. Vidhyadhar Sharma (ASI) 6.12.2001
19.4.2005
25.5.2011
2011
Acquittal
7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
5 SAW No.56/2015 State vs. Brij Kishore Sharma (ASI) (i) 2.6.2006
(ii) 15.6.2009
(i) 30.4.2009
(ii) 3.4.2012 7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants has contended that in view of the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the respondents are not entitled for grant of annual grade increments and other benefits including selection grade during the period of suspension. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar [(2014) 13 SCC 622].
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that once the orders of suspension have been revoked and the orders of reinstatement passed, the respondents were entitled to all the benefits including the increments and selection scale during the period of suspension. In support of their submission, they have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr. [2015(10) Scale 486] and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Brij Lal Bundel vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2007(1) RLW 484].
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the record.
7. At the outset, we deem it necessary to reproduce hereunder Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules:
“54. Re-instatement – (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended is reinstated or would ha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
