STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2014 whereby the Director, Treasuries & Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur was directed to decide the representation of the respondent herein within four weeks by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Mansingh Hada & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8124/2012, vide order dated 28.01.2014].

(2.) The respondent was appointed as Accountant after his selection through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 19.11.1979 and was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer on 31.12.1988. While he was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer, a criminal case was registered against him and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.06.2008. Thereafter his suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated in service vide order dated 10.08.2010. He had filed the writ petition seeking proper pay fixation by granting him due annual grade increment and the benefit of revised pay scale and selection scale. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mansingh Hada wherein the suspension of the petitioners had been revoked on account of delay in the conclusion of the criminal trial, and the Court held the petitioners therein, deeming them throughout in service, entitled to the benefit of due annual grade increments, benefit of revision of pay consequent upon acceptance of recommendations of Fifth & Sixth Pay Commission as well as the selection scales. However, the issue with regard to benefit of differential amount of salary for the period he was under suspension was to be decided as and when the final order under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is passed.

(3.) We have been informed that the Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mohan Lal Swami [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.2076/2014 vide order dated 23.03.2015], while deciding a similar controversy, had dismissed the appeal with the observation that the representation shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with statutory Rules, governing the service of the respondent and the judgments applicable thereto. It was also specified that the competent authority shall not be bound by the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench had held as under: