Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Girish Agarwal vs State & Ors on 29 November, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6657/1998 Dr Girish Agrawal versus State of Rajasthan & anr 29.11.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Anil Kumar Garg for petitioner Miss Raj Sharma, Dy GC for respondents BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, following prayers have been made -
(I) To direct the respondents to make fixation of his pay in the revised pay scales of 1998 and further direct to make payment of the difference since September, 1996 as per rules of revised pay scale.
(II) to direct the respondents to make payment of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of suspension i.e. from September, 1996 calculating the same on the basis of the revised pay scale.
(III) To direct the respondents to pay non-practising allowance to the petitioner @ 20% of the basic pay and then including the same in the basic pay for the purpose of calculating the subsistence allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance and further to make the payment of the difference of the same since September, 1996 till date and regularly in future.
(IV) To direct the respondents to make payment of due salary for the month of May, 1996.
It is stated that during pendency of the writ petition, not only the order of suspension was revoked but an order of punishment was also issued which was then challenged by a separate writ petition bearing No.1520/2002, which has been withdrawn today only.
It is stated that petitioner was denied benefit of revision of the pay pursuant to the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1998and other benefits which include increments and Non-Practising Allowance apart from other allowances. Since suspension order does not exist, petitioner may be given benefit as claimed in the writ petition other than stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect pursuant to the order subsequently passed.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that due fixation has already been made, however, if anything remains, it would be considered and given to the petitioner as per law.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and find that the petitioner was placed under suspension during pendency of the enquiry. After conclusion of enquiry, punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated 9.2.2001. In view of the above and otherwise, petitioner was entitled to fixation pursuant to the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 and further benefits arising out of it, which includes increments and other allowances.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondents are directed to re-fix pay of the petitioner as per Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 if necessary revision with consequential benefits have not been extended to him as yet. It will obviously revise the pensionary benefits to the petitioner if the change of the pensionary benefits are not with the revision of the pay scale. Petitioner would also be entitled to the subsistence allowance of the period of suspension if it was not extended to him and other benefits as are admissible as per rules. Accordingly, necessary payment, if due to the petitioner, may be made within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW