Honble MADAN, J. – The question of law which arises for consideration of this court is as to whether in a given case where the competent authority holds that a government servant stands fully exonerated as a result of disciplinary enquiry initiated against him, should not be held entitled to payment of full salary as well as other allowances as admissible to him i.e. H.R.A., D.A., revised pension etc. inaccordance with Rule 54 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short R.S.R.) consequent upon his re-instatement in service? (2). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Patwari in the revenue department in the year 1955 and subsequently promoted as Girdawar Kanoongo, i.e. Land Record Ins-pector and was posted as Inspector in Circle Mewar and was confirmed on substantive basis as Land Record Inspector. He retired from the said post on or attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.1987. On 8.4.1985 a raid was conducted on behalf of Anticorruption Department on the complaint of one Shri Raghunandan Srivastava against the petitioner and Shri Bal Kishan Jain Patwari.The said Patwari was posted at that time in Patwar Mandal in District Dausa. A sum of Rs. 500.00 was recovered from the person of Balkishan Jain but nothing was recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter a challan was filed by the Anti-corruption Department in the court of Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was subsequently transferred to the court of Special Judge Anti-corruption, Bharat-pur in the year 1990 where the matter is still subjudice. Thereafter a preliminary enquiry was instituted by the department against the petitioner and Shri Balkishan Jain who were placed under suspension by the respondent vide their order dated 15.5.1985. In lieu of suspension, subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of the basic pay alongwith 50% of the permissible house rent and dearness allowance,was also directed to be paid to the petitioner. Subsequently a charge- sheet dated 1.10.1985 alongwith the letter containing the particulars of charge, was served on the petitioner by the department with a direction that reply, if any be filed within the specified time as prescribed under the rules. Subsequently a charge- sheet dated 1.10.1985 alongwith the letter containing the particulars of charge, was served on the petitioner by the department with a direction that reply, if any be filed within the specified time as prescribed under the rules. Accordingly the petitioner filed his reply on 15.10.1985 and he had requested that he be afforded opportunity of per-sonal hearing as well as cross-examination of the witnesses and also be permitted inspection of certain documents. Simultaneously he also made a request for production of certain documents and witnesses. (3). As a result of the above, the disciplinary authority gave personal hearing to the petitioner on 18.12.1985 which he attended and the matter was adjournedto 9.1.986 when the disciplinary authority again gave personal hearing to the petitioner and after completing hearing, the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was dropped by the disciplinary authority in terms of its order, dated 29.1.1986 vide Annexure-3. (4). Thereafter in view of the order, dated 29.1.1986 by which the departmentalproceedings against the petitioner were dropped, he requested for reinstatement in service on the same post vide Annexure 4 dated 11.8.1986 to which the respondents neither gave any heed nor any consideration. However, after the expiry of about 6 months of the suspension of the petitioner, the petitioner by his representation dated 4.6.1986 made a request to the competent authority for increasing his subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% of the basic pay as per the settled norms vide Annexure 5 which reequest of the petitioner was allowed by the competentauthority on 18.7.1986. Thereafter the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.10.1987, but since the petitioner had been reinstated in service before the intended date of retirement vide order, dated 17.10.1987, he was entitled to the payment of full salary for the due period but the same was not paid to the petitioner by the respondents. It has further been conten-ded by the petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit of three annual grade increments which had become due in his favour from the date of suspension, i.e., 15.5.1985 to the date of his retirement, i.e., 17.10.1987 in the scale of Rs. It has further been conten-ded by the petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit of three annual grade increments which had become due in his favour from the date of suspension, i.e., 15.5.1985 to the date of his retirement, i.e., 17.10.1987 in the scale of Rs. 1640 and for some time on expiry of six months he was also to be given benefit of subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate in accordance with law in the light of the provisionsof Rule 54(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 but the same has not been extended to him. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing that consequent upon the retirement of the petitioner from service his revised pension at the rate of Rs. 820.00 p.m. by fixing him in the pay scale of Rs. 1640 should have been done by the respondents by alsogiving him the benefit of dearness allowance and house rent allowance for the same as per the mandatory requirements under the rules but the same has not yet been done as per Rule 54(4) of the R.S.R. which has been extended to similarly placed other employees but denied to the petitioner. (5). Sub-rule (2) & (4) of Rule 54 of the R.S.R. reads as under :– ``(2) Where such competent authority holds that the Government Servant has been fully exonerated or, in the case of suspension that it was wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall be given the full pay and dearness allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired as a penalty or suspended, as the case may be. 4. In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (6). 4. In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (6). During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the bar that respondents were under statutory obligationto extend the consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with sub- rules (2) and (4) of Rule 54 of the R.S.R. by treating the period of absence from duty as a period actually spent on duty for all purposes in view of the fact that the petitioner had been fully exonerated as a result of the order of reinstatement in service, but unfortunately the competent authority had made gross violation ofthe aforesaid Rule in the case of the petitioner. (7). In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sengara Singh vs. State of Punjab (1). In this case a Special Leave Petition was preferred to the Apex Court against the judgment and order, dated 29.4.1983 of Allahabad High Court bythe petitioner. The question of law which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was that once the dismissal order of the petitioner had been set aside by the competent authority and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, whether he was entitled to be treated at par with other similarly placed employees in the matter of his reinstatement and consequential benefits in absence of any dis- tinguishing features and whether it would not amount to violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for depriving the petitioner of the largesse of reinstatement. it was held by the Apex Court that once the petitioner has been reinstated in service he was entitled to be paid all consequential benefits which were admissible to him in accordance with the rules and there could be no discrimination quo similarly placed other employees of the concerned department. The Apex Court further held that his service should be treated as continuous and the period between the date of dismissal and his reinstatement should be treated as on leave if available and admissible or leave without pay if leave of any kind isnot available and he should be paid his leave salary as well as other consequential benefits inaccordance with law. (8). (8). In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully attracted to this case and since as a result of departmental inquiry, the petitioner stood fully exonerated of the charge and the alleged delinquency having neither been proved nor establi-shed, the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits as admissible under the Rules consequent upon his reinstatement in service. This material aspect of the matter has unfortunately been grossly overlooked by the respondents resulting in injustice to the petitioner in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India read with Sub Rules 2 & 4 of Rule 54 of R.S.R. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant Rules on the subject. (9). As a result of the above discussions the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.6.1989 (Annexure 6) by which the petitioner was directed to furnish as undertaking to the respondents to refund the amount in case the peti-tioner is held guilty by the competent court is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the period from the date of suspension, i.e., 15.5.1985 to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner, i.e., 17.10.1987 as the period spent on duty in accordance with Rule 54 (2) and (4) of the R.S.R. with a further direction to the respondents to pay arrears of salary and other allowances due to the petitionerand as admissible to him in accordance with the rules with interest @ 18% per annum from due date till payment. The petitioner will further be entitled to all the allowances as admissible to him in accordance with the rules including the benefits of annual grade increments from due date and also the arrears of salary due to him on account of the pay difference between the period spent on suspension, i.e.,15.5.1985 to 16.10.1987 by adjusting the same as against his full salary as extended to other similarly placed employees of the department in terms of the order, dated 17.7.1988 without any pre-condition. The respondents are further directed to pay to the petitioner the pension at the revised rate and also the gratuity, commutation amount, leave encashment as against the accumulated earned leave during theperiod of suspension of the petitioner and such other consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with the rules. The respondents are further directed to pay to the petitioner the pension at the revised rate and also the gratuity, commutation amount, leave encashment as against the accumulated earned leave during theperiod of suspension of the petitioner and such other consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with the rules. The aforesaid, amount shall be paid to the petitioner positively within a period of eight weeks from today. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.