- (1.) This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.05.2014 whereby the Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., Ajmer was directed to decide the representation of the respondent herein within four weeks by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Mansingh Hada & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8124/2012, vide order dated 28.01.2014].
(2.) The respondent was appointed as Constable (Driver) vide order dated 11.03.1998. He is stated to have performed his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors but when a criminal case was registered against him, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.02.2005. He was later reinstated in service vide order dated 20.01.2011. He had filed the writ petition seeking proper pay fixation by granting annual grade increments and tbe benefit of revised pay scale in terms of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mansingh Hada wherein the suspension of the petitioners had been revoked on account of delay in the conclusion of the criminal trial, and the Court held the petitioners therein, deeming them throughout in service, entitled to the benefit of due annual grade increments, benefit of revision of pay consequent upon acceptance of recommendations of Fifth & Sixth Pay Commission as well as the selection scales. However, the issue with regard to benefit of differential amount of salary for the period he was under suspension was to be decided as and when the final order under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is passed.
(3.) We have been informed that the Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mohan Lal Swami [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.2076/2014 vide order dated 23.03.2015], while deciding a similar controversy, had dismissed the appeal with the observation that the representation shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with statutory Rules, governing the service of the respondent and the judgments applicable thereto. It was also specified that the competent authority shall not be bound by the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench had held as under: "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.";