SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
STATE OF RAJ AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
DHARAM SINGH AND ANR – Respondent
SAW 1337/2014



Advocates:
['RAMDEV JALWANIYA OIC', '', 'INDERJEET SINGH AAG', 'DR A S KHANGAROT ADD G C', 'SANDEEP SAXENA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

(1) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1255/2014

State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dilip Kumar Dewani

(2) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1337/2014

State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Dharam Singh & Anr.

(3) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1534/2014

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mansingh Hada & Ors.

(4) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.15/2015

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal

(5) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.18/2015

State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Birbal Singh & Anr.

(6) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.56/2015

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Brij Kishore Sharma

Date of Judgment : 3rd February, 2016

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.AJIT SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG

Mr. Inderjeet Singh, AAG for appellants.

Mr. Mohd. Anees, Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Mr. Anil Upman,

Mr. Mahendra Sharma, counsel for respondents.

Reportable

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

2

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which had been revoked.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.

3

S.

No.

Case No.

Title

Date of

Suspension

Date of

Reinstatement

Offence u/s

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.15/20

15

State vs. Sanwar Mal

(Head Constable)

06.11.06

25.5.2011

7, 13(1)D(2)

PC Act

4

SAW

No.18/20

15

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.56/20

15

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 se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top