Manohar Roop Rai vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—By an order dated 19.11.1992, the petitioner was placed under suspension as he was undergoing a trial for the offences punishable u/s 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1944 read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The order dated 19.11.1992 was quashed by this Court while accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5788/2005 preferred by the petitioner. As a consequent to quashing of the order dated 19.11.1992 petitioner''s position was restored as Assistant Engineer and he was posted in the office of Executive Engineer, Amar Singh Sub Branch, Division-II, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bhadra. The petitioner after resuming duties claimed for revision of his pay and also for grant of annual grade increment, those are not given to him since 1992. The Executive Engineer, Amar Singh Sub Branch, Division-II, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bhadra by letter dated 15.9.2007 informed the petitioner that no order was given by the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5788/2005 regarding payment of arrears and as such the same cannot be paid. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

It is contended by Mr. C.S. Bissa, learned Counsel for the petitioner that after resuming duties, the petitioner is entitiled for revision of pay, fixation of pay, arrears accruing as a consequent to revision of pay as also the annual grade increment. It is alleged that the revision of pay cannot be made dependent to the pendency of a Criminal Case against the petitioner.

On the other hand, as per the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for revision of pay, fixation of pay, arrears as a consequent to revision of pay and annual grade increment in view of pendency of a Criminal Case for serious allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Indian Penal Code.

I have considered the rival contentions.

The petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1992 and thereafter he was restored to his position as Assistant Engineer in pursuant to the directions given by this Court. Since 1992 the pay-scales have been revised in the year 1996 and thereafter in the year 2006. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the petitioner would not have been restored to his office by revoking the order of suspension, then too, the respondents were required to revise the petitioner''s subsistence allowance on revision of pay-scales, meaning thereby the revision of pay-scales in no manner can be made dependent to pendency of the Criminal Case and as such, the respondents are required to revise pay of the petitioner by making his fixation in the revised pay-scales. In view of it, the denial for revision of pay-scale, fixation of petitioner''s pay and payment of arrear accruing as a consequent to such revision is bad. On revision of pay-scale, if any arrear accrues to the petitioner then that too is required to be given to the petitioner as per the policy or the rules applicable. So far as, the annual grade increments are concerned, those cannot be paid to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension, till disposal of the Criminal Case concern.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also not dispute this position.

In view of whatever said above, the petition for writ is allowed in part with a direction to the respondents to revise pay of the petitioner in accordance with the pay rules applicable and to make fixation of his pay in the relevant pay-scale. The petitioner is also entitled for receiving arrears as a consequent to revision of pay-scale and fixation of pay in revised pay-scale. The petitioner is also entitled for increments from the date he was restored as Assistant Engineer on quashing the order of suspension. The issue regarding grant of increments for the period, the petitioner remained under suspension, shall be subject to final disposal of Criminal Case.

No order as to cost.