T.C. Jain vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Inder Sen Israni, J.—This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the order dated March 4, 1992 (Annx. 8), by which his application for grant of yearly increments during the period of suspension has been rejected, may be quashed.

Briefly stated, the petitioner, while he was working as Principal, I.T.I, at Ajmer, disciplinary proceedings were initated against him by the respondents, in contemplation of which, he was suspended vide order dated May 11, 1983 (Annx. 4). The petitioner continued to remain under suspension, till he was re-instated vide order dated August 4, 1987 (Annx. 5), passed by the Governor, during the pendency of the enquiry. While the petitioner was under suspension, he made an application dated January 11, 1984 to the respondents with a prayer to give him annual grade increments, during the period of suspension, which was, however, rejected.

It is submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel, that the petitioner, on May 4, 1991 (Annx.6), came to know about the judgments of this Court passed in Kan Singh Bhati v. State of Rqjasthan and B.B. Kaushik v. State of Rqjasthan, in which a position of law had been settled that the persons under suspension are entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increments. Thereafter, he sent an application to the concerned authorities alongwith photo-stat copies of the above-mentioned two judgments. It is further contended that, even though, the matter is squarely covered by the judgments, mentioned above, but his application, which was forwarded by the Director, Technical Education, to respondent No. 1 for taking decision, was rejected vide letter dated May 7, 1992 (Annx.8).

I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record and return filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been stated in para 4 of the reply that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment passed in Kan Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan 1989 (1) RLR 111 and that the re-instatement was made in terms of Annx.5 A perusal of Annx. 5 dated August 4, 1987 shows that there is no order, regarding with holding the annual grade increments of the petitioner, therefore, this plea has no force. It may be pointed out that Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ''CCA Rules'') provides for suspension of a Government servant. However, it may be pointed out that suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. Rule 29 of the CCA Rules provides that increments are to be drawn as a matter of course, unless with-held by an specific order by the authority empowered to withhold such increments, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CCA Rules. Rule 31, provides for counting of increments in time scales. It is nowhere provided in the CCA Rules that an officer under suspension is not entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increments. The matter is clearly and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Kan Singh Bhati (supra), wherein it was held that a Government seivant is entitled to be allowed annual grade increments during the period of suspension for the purpose of calculating subsistence allowance, as suspension is not punishment and contract of service continues, even during suspension. It was, therefore, held that the increments should be allowed to be drawn, unless withheld by specific order and subsistence allowance should be calculated, accordingly. Admittedly, no specific order withholding the annual grade increments of the petitioner has been passed by the concerned authority.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated March 4, 1992 (Annx. 9) is quashed and it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increments during the period of suspension, i.e., from May 11, 1983 to August 4, 1987.

Before parting with the case, I deem it appropriate to mention it is unfortunate that inspite of clear decisions of this Court, the persons similarly situated are forced to enter into litigation by the State, ignoring the judgments of this Court, which are binding on the State of Rajasthan.

The petitioner not only drew attention, but attached photo-stat copies of the judgments alongwith his application dated May 4, 1991. (Annx.6). However, these judgments were conveniently ignored and the petitioner has been forced to enter into litigation to get his grievance redressed. Therefore, this Court, vide order dated May 13, 1992, directed that notice be also given to the Deputy Secretary, Technical Education, Department of Technical Education, Shri N.D.. Choradiya, under whose signature the application of the petitioner (Annx.6) was rejected. In the circumstances, I also deem it appropriate to award cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner and it is directed that this cost may be recovered either from the salary of Mr. Choradiya or from any other officer, who is responsible for deliberately ignoring the judgments of this Court, even though the petitioner provided photo-stat copies of the same for perusal of the concerned authorities. The amount of cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for information and necessary action in the matter.