SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions have been filed for quashing the order No. PHQ/Re -0rg./89/467 -91 date July 19,1990(Annexure 2) of the Inspector General of Police (Reorganisation), Rajasthan, Jaipur by which he has clarified his earlier order No. PHQ/Re -org/89/281 -85 dated October 4,1989 (Annexure 1). As the facts and involved in all these cases are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN all these cases, petitioners were employees of the police department. They along with others took part in the non -gazetted police employees' strike held in the year 1979. Subsequently, they were dismissed from the service. Their cases went to the Supreme Court. It directed that the petitioners should prefer appeals against the orders of their dismissal, the Director General of Police would designate the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals and the Inspector General of Police (Re -organisation), Rajasthan Jaipur (respondent No. 3) was designated as the appellate authority. By order dated October 4, 1989 (Annexure 1), the appeals were partly allowed and the punishment of dismissal was altered to stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect. The appellate authority also directed that the appellants shall be paid 3/4th of the pay and allowances of the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement (in short the said period), the rest shall stand forfeited, the said period will be treated as on duty for the purposes of pension, gratuity, fixation and seniority only and the stoppage in the grade increments will be effected from the date of joining the duty. The pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised pay scales after taking into account grade increments which fell due during the said period. They have not been paid the arrears of pay and allowances in terms of the order Annexure 1. On July 19, 1990, order (Annexure 2) has been passed by the respondent No. 3 modifying the earlier order Annexure 1 that the grade increments secured during the said period would not be taken into consideration.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as provided under Rule 29, Rajasthan Service Rules annual grade increments are drawn as a matter of course, accordingly they were taken into consideration while fixing the pay of the petitioners under the revised pay scales of 1981 and 1986 the petitioners cannot be deprived of their annual grade increments simply on the said objection of the Treasury Officer. He further contended that after passing of the order dated October 4, 1989 (Annexure 1 ], the Disciplinary Authority became functus officio and it could not subsequently pass impugned order dated July 19, 1990 (Annexure 2). He, also contended that the impugned order being against the interest of the petitioners could not be passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing and on this ground also it deserves to be quashed. He lastly contended that the order Annexure2 amounted to reviewing the earlier order Annexure 1 which could not be reviewed as there is no provision for the review of an earlier order by the Appellate Authority under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1958.