Acquittal in a criminal case entitles an employee to benefits, regardless of pending appeals, as the pendency should not equate to ongoing criminal proceedings.

Order :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents are not giving him benefits of annual grade increments and selection grade.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have denied such benefits to the petitioner in wake of pendency of criminal case bearing No.1122/2011. He argued that regardless of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Court in the said criminal case by way of judgment and order dated 25.08.2022, the respondents have not conferred the due benefits to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that considering petitioner’s case, a direction was issued by this Court on 06.11.2024, whereby the respondents were directed to consider petitioner’s representation for grant of subsequent benefits including benefit of ACP and grant of promotion, if he is otherwise entitled in view of the fact that he has been acquitted by the competent Court in the said criminal case instituted against him.

4. Pursuant to the direction so given, the respondents have filed a reply and placed the order dated 04.03.2025 on record, whereby they have turned down petitioner’s request for conferment of the benefits on the ground that the State has preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 25.08.2022, which is pending consideration. While rejecting petitioner’s representation, the State has placed reliance upon clause 6(i)(c) of Schedule VI of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2017’).

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that rejection of petitioner’s representation is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. He argued that mere pendency of the appeal preferred by the State cannot be a reason enough to deny due benefits to the petitioner.

6. While submitting that there is huge backlog of cases before the Courts so far as criminal appeals are concerned, learned counsel argued that conclusion of the appeal will take substantial time and in case, the same is rejected, the State would definitely prefer revision petition and take further legal remedies thereagainst and in such process, the petitioner will be deprived of his benefits which he is legally entitled to. As the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to get all the benefits.

7. Mr. Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that if the petitioner feels aggrieved of the order dated 04.03.2025, whereby his representation has been rejected, he should lay a separate challenge to such an order. He further argued that the allegation against the petitioner was of embezzlement of huge amount of approximate Rs.3 lakhs and therefore, no indulgence be granted.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that clause 6(i)(c) of Schedule VI of the Rules of 2017 speaks of pendency of criminal case and in instant case, the same comes in currency because pendency of appeal is to be treated as pendency of criminal case.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. This Court is of the view that rejection of petitioner’s representation does not call for any specific challenge or requires amendment in the writ petition, because the same was passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 06.11.2024.

11. This Court bonafidely believed that the respondents will take a pragmatic view/decision of the representation filed by the petitioner but for the dismay of the petitioner, it could not be done.

12. Since the order impugned dated 04.03.2025 has been passed during pendency of the writ petition that too pursuant to the order passed by this Court, no separate challenge is required. This Court, therefore, proceeds to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order.

13. Admitting the merit of the order under consideration (04.03.2025), the respondents have relied upon clause 6(i)(c) of