Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 2408
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble S.N. JHA, CJ. Honble AJAY RASTOGI, J.
Brij Lal Bundel - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 669 of 2000
Decided On : October 10, 2006
Sunil Samdaria, for Petitioner A.K. Sharma, for Respondent No. 2
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, Rule 29, 54 – Non grant of annual grade increment became due during suspension period – Held – The Govt. Servant is not entitled to annual increment(s) during suspension period but on his reinstatement u/R. 54(1) RSR, he becomes entitled to release of annual increment (s) falling due during suspension period – Whether he has been fully exonerated or not and the suspension has been held to be wholly unjustified or not, unless the punishment of with—holding of increment is imposed on him in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CCA Rules – Entitled to the increment. (Paras 21 & 22)(b) Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, Rule 54, Entitlement of full pay and allowances during suspension period particularly when the delinquent was awarded the punishment of censure – Held – The benefits of full pay and allowance depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings – As per Rule 54 RSR where the delinquent employee is not fully exonerated, he cannot claim full pay and dearness allowance as a matter of right – Petitioner is not entitled to the benefits. (Paras 8 to 12)
(2). Orders were passed after filing of the writ petition in terms of which petitioners suspension period from 4.12.1992 to 2.8.1993 was regularized vide order dated 28.2.2000, and the period was treated as spent on duty but only for the purpose of pension, and he was not allowed the pay and allowances except the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the suspension period. The pay of the petitioner was also revised vide order dated 4.5.2000 in the scale of Rs. 16400-450-20000 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 17300/- as on 1.9.1996 as per the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998. However he was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 9.11.2000.
(3). When the petition was taken up for hearing Shri Sunil Samdaria appearing for the petitioner confined his grievance to non-payment of pay and non-release of annual grade increment during the suspension period. He submitted that having regard to the fact that a minor penalty of censure was imposed, the petitioner should have been paid full pay and allowances, and in any case there was no justification to withhold the annual grade increment during the suspension period. In support of the latter contention, counsel placed reliance on Kan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1989 (1) RLR 111 and Smt. Shanti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1990 (1) RLR 800.
(4). The question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to release of annual grade increment during suspension period need not detain us. No doubt in Kan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court took the view that the contract of service continues even during suspension, and increment should be ordinarily allowed to be drawn unless it is withheld by a specific order; on appeal by the State, the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 9256/1989 set aside the judgment. The order of the Supreme Court is not reported in any journal but it has been quoted verbatim in Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Narayan Lal Meena, 1996 III LLJ (supp.) 1152. The order is brief and may be quoted as under:-
``Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the Rules governing the matter, the claim for enhancement of the subsistence allowance in the manner directed by the High Court in this case, is not sustainable. The order dated February 28, 1989, passed by the Rajasthan High Court in W.P. No. 871 of 1988 is set aside and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(5). The judgment in Kan Singh (besides Smt. Shanti Devi) which is the basis of the petitioners claim having been set aside by the Supreme Court, it is plain that the petitioner cannot claim annual grade increment during the suspension period.
(6). The order of the Supreme Court, it would appear, does not set out reasons as to disentitlement of the delinquent employee to annual grade increments during the suspension period perhaps because the reason is too obvious. The entitlement to pay and allowances including annual grade increments during suspension period depends on outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, and as we shall presently see hereinafter, when we notice rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, where a delinquent employee is not fully exonerated, the rule enjoins upon the competent authority to take a decision regarding the proportion of pay a
