Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 683 (RAJ)

MANAGING DIRECTOR, AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. MOHAN LAL SWAMI

2015-03-23

AJIT SINGH, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The delay of 26 days has been sufficiently explained and is, accordingly, condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 3. It is submitted that though learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to decide the representation of the respondent, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent in this Special Appeal, may not be taken as binding upon the appellants for deciding the representation. 4. The respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer and was serving in Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam Limited, Ajmer. A criminal case for offences under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 120B IPC was registered against him, on which, he was placed under suspension on 20.10.2004. After a period of six years, when the trial was still pending, considering the delay in the trial, by order dated 20.10.2010, the respondent was reinstated in service as Junior Engineer. He claimed the arrears of salary in between the period of suspension and reinstatement, and filed the writ petition. In the writ petition, giving rise to the Special Appeal, the petitioner claimed annual grade increments for suspension period, and after revocation, the benefit of selection grade. He relied upon certain judgments of this Court, in which it was held that in similar circumstances, a person can be allowed annual grade increments, revision of pay and selection scale in proportion to the subsistence allowance during the suspension period. 5. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with direction to the appellants to decide the representation. In the operative portion of the judgment, it was directed that the representation shall be decided by the respondents in the light of the arguments and the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that the direction that the appellants' authority will consider the arguments and the judgments while deciding the representation, will prejudice the appellants in taking an independent view in the light of the prevailing Rules. 7. We do not find that the observations made in the operative portion of the judgment, that the representation to be decided in the light of the arguments and the judgments referred to, will bind the appellants' authority, in any manner. 7. We do not find that the observations made in the operative portion of the judgment, that the representation to be decided in the light of the arguments and the judgments referred to, will bind the appellants' authority, in any manner. An employer is required to decide the representation, in accordance with the statutory Rules, which govern the Service Rules of the employee. The principles of law in the judgment cited may be considered at the time of taking such decisions, but the decisions relied upon in the judgment, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner before learned Single Judge, cannot be said to be binding on the appellants' authority in taking an administrative view. 8. The Special Appeal does not deserve interference and is, accordingly, dismissed, with observation that the competent authority in the appellant-Nigam will decide the representation, in accordance with the statutory Rules, governing the service of the respondent. 9. I.A. No.33180/2014 stands disposed of.