CW 6854/1999 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6854/1999 Dambar SinghVersus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 04/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. A.K. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, Dy.G.A., for State *** Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that after suspension order of petitioner was revoked and he was allowed to be reinstated in service vide order dated 6th February, 1996 which was modified later on 11th September, 1996 that he will get the pay which he was getting prior to the date of his suspension i.e. 1st April, 1984. Petitioner joined service as Primary School Teacher in the year 1979. A Criminal Case No.32/84 at Police Station Iradat Nagar, District Agra [U.P.] was registered against him u/s.396 IPC on 1st April, 1984. However, he was granted bail on 23rd November, 1984 and remained in judicial custody for 7 months and 23 days. For his alleged involvement in a criminal case instituted against him, he was placed under suspension on 1st April, 1984. After passing almost 12 years of period of suspension, the disciplinary authority revoked the order of suspension subject to final outcome of criminal case instituted against him vide order dated 6th February, 1996 and it was further clarified by subsequent order dated 11th September, 1996 Ann.2 that he will continue to get the pay and allowances which he was entitled for prior to the date of suspension i.e. 1st April, 1984. CW 6854/1999 [2] Only grievance raised by petitioner is that once he has been reinstated in service however subject to final outcome of criminal case instituted against him, atleast he is entitled for salary and benefits to which he is otherwise entitled for under Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as he is discharging his duties on the post of Teacher Gr.III and persons who are similarly situated working in the cadre he is entitled for the same emoluments however, subject to taken note of period during which he remained under suspension. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred in Para 5 that prolonged suspension was not considered in the interest of government as there was a possibility of trial may take its own time, but at the same time it has been further averred that petitioner was reinstated on his own request on the condition that he would draw his pay at the same rate which he was drawing at the time of suspension till final decision of criminal case instituted against him. On a specific question put to the counsel for petitioner that what is the fate of criminal case instituted against him, it has been informed to this court that as per instructions extended to him by his client the Criminal Case No.32/84 is still pending before the competent court of jurisdiction and has not been decided so far. So far as criminal case instituted against petitioner is concerned, period of his suspension or further action certainly will be decided after its final outcome, but once petitioner after CW 6854/1999 [3] almost 12 years of period of suspension was reinstated in service, he was entitled for his salary and allowances to which he was otherwise entitled for in terms of Rule 54 of RSR, 1951 and salary which the petitioner is getting even as on today what he was getting on the date of placing him under suspension cannot be said to be his pay to which he is entitled for under the rules. As regards submission made by counsel that he was reinstated in service on his own request suffice it to say that there is no such application placed on record. Apart from it, infact the petitioner was reinstated because of his prolonged suspension and the disciplinary authority was of the opinion that pending criminal case will take its own time and that will be a burden on public exchequer that was consideration for his reinstatement and if petitioner has requested as he has undergone prolonged suspension and will be considered for reinstatement that cannot be considered as his own request for leaving salary, pay and allowances to which he was otherwise entitled for under the rules. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to make fixation of petitioner on his reinstatement to which he is otherwise entitled for under the Rules, 1951 and after its due adjustment arrears may also be computed and paid to him, within three months. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA6854CW1999 4-4.doc