##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14664]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7028/2026

Salag Ram Godara S/o Shri Bhagawana Ram Godara, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village Jhatera, Dist. Nagaur,

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,

Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter), Jaipur.

3. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, (Traffic), Jodhpur.

4. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur (West), Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahdev Raliya For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

28/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Sardar Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 9772/2011, decided on 07.08.2012 and Man Singh Hada and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: SBCWP No. 8124/2012, decided on

28.01.2014.

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:39:37 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 10:37:31 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14664] (2 of 4) [CW-7028/2026] 2. It is further contended that a Division Bench of this Court has also observed in the case of Brij Lal Bundel Vs. State and Anr., that if the order of suspension is revoked and the employee is reinstated in service, he, as per Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, is entitled to annual grade increments. Reference is also made to the adjudication by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking note of the cases aforesaid in the case of Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 3rd November, 2014,

holding thus:

“Learned counsel has submitted that a division bench of this Court in Brij Lal Bundel vs. State and Another - 2007 (1) RLW 484 has also held that when the order of suspension is revoked and the employee is reinstated in service, he, as per Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, becomes entitled to annual grade increments as the increment has to be drawn in the matter of course unless withheld. The period of suspension is normally treated as period spent on duty for the purpose of pension. If the period is treated as spent on duty, there would not be break in service and therefore there is no reason why the government servant was deprived of annual grade increments falling due in the suspension period after his reinstatement. It was held that denial of annual grade increments in such a scenario would tantamount to withholding increments, which is a penalty specified under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, which penalty cannot be imposed without observing the procedure envisaged in

Rule 16 and 17 of the CCA Rules.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if the State respondents are

directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:39:37 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 10:37:31 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14664] (3 of 4) [CW-7028/2026] time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within a

period of two weeks.

4. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation within two weeks hereinafter,

enclosing a copy of the judgment, which has been referred to and

relied upon in support of his claim.

5. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation along

with a certified copy of this order.

6. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if respondents find the case of the petitioner to be covered by the judgment(s) aforesaid, before gi