SINGHVI, J. - (1.) A short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to grade increment in the pay scale of the post held by him during the period of his suspension.
(2.) THE petitioner is substantively employed with the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). He was suspended by an order dated 16. 2. 89 in contemplation of departmental inquiry. He was reinstated on 6. 4. 89. According to the petitioner the date of his annual grade increment fell on 1. 4. 89 but same was not allowed to him. By an order dated 25. 10. 89 it has been held that since decision regarding the suspension period has not been taken so far, he is not entitled to grade increment for the period of suspension. The petitioner served a notice of demand for justice and then filed this writ petition claiming increment for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions contained in Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1974. As per regulation 55 of these Regulations, Rajasthan Service Rules have been made applicable in respect of the matter relating to terms and conditions of service which are not governed by the Regulations. He has also referred to the provision of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and claimed that as per that rule the petitioner is entitled to grade increment even for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in Kan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (1 ). Shri R. R. L. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to annual grade increment for the period of suspension because as per Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Service Rules an employee who has been suspended is entitled to subsistence allowance only. As per Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the disciplinary authority is entitled to take a decision regarding the period of suspension after the conclusion of the inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be given increment during the period of his suspension.
(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the decision of the Division Bench in Kan Singh's case (supra ). After a careful consideration of Rules 29, 53 and 54 of the Rules, the Division Bench has held that an employee is entitled to annual grade increment during the period of suspension. The Division Bench clearly held that the annual grade increment shall be granted as a matter of course unless it is withheld by a specific order. Such specific order can be passed in a disciplinary inquiry held in accordance with the Classification Control and Appeal Rules. In the absence of specific order for withholding of increment the employee cannot be deprived of increment falling due during the period of suspension. In my opinion the law laid down in Kan Singh's case (supra) is fully applicable in the present case. It is not relevant that a person is kept under suspension for a long period or for short period. The ratio of that decision is that the employee is entitled to increment even during the period of suspension, unless it is withheld by specific order passed at the conclusion of a disciplinary inquiry. Therefore, the decision of respondent Corporation not to give increment to the petitioner for the period of suspension is not sustainable in the eye of law. ;