Hon'ble 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petitioners to be eligible for the grant of the annual grade increments even during the period of suspension which had been revoked.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 Vide order dated 26.11.2012, his suspension was revoked subject to the outcome of pending criminal proceedings.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 Rein-statement	Offence u/s
1	SAW No.1337/14	State vs. 1. Dharam Singh s/o Shri Munshi Singh (Constable)	15.5.2006	11.1.2011	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act.
		2. Dharam Singh s/o Shri Ramswaroop (Constable)	(i) 15.3.2000 (ii) 23.6.2009	(i) 24.4.2009 (ii) 4.1.2010	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act. 120B IPC.
2	SAW No.1534/14	State vs.  Man Singh Hada (ASI)	19.4.2008	7.6.2010	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
		2. Pawan Kumar Nagar (ASI)	15.2.2007	7.6.2010	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
		3. Hansraj (ASI)	7.8.2002	11.6.2010	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
		4. Irfan (Constable)	6.1.2006	28.12.2010	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act. 120B, 201 IPC.
		5. Prabhu Dayal (ASI)	12.2.2002	8.6.2010	7, 13(1)D(2) PC Act
		6. Om Prakash (ASI)	11.5.2005	8.6.2010	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)	6.12.2001	25.5.2011	Acquittal
		2. Vidhyadhar Sharma (ASI)	19.4.2005	2011	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 Rajashan 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 part