JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Petitioner who is working as LDC in the District Treasury, Alwar, was placed under suspension by order dated 14.1.1987 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. He was however, reinstated in service on 2.2.88. He has stated that no enquiry has been initiated against him for last 4 years, in as much as no notice of enquiry either under Rule 16 or under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been served upon him. The grade increments, which fell due to the petitioner in the month of December, 1987, December, 1988, December, 1989 and December 1990 have not been released. Moreover, he has not been given the benefit of selection grade in the cadre of LDC whereas the other persons who are junior to him have been given this grade vide order dated 14.3.1990. Petitioner made representations on 16.10.1989, 30.1.1990, 23.3.1990 31.1.1991 and 26.2.1991 for grant of annual grade increments and for grant of selection grade. In respect of annual grade increments, the District Treasury Officer, Alwar has informed the petitioner vide letter dated 6.7.90 that as per the decision of the Collector which has been sent by the Collector to the District Treasury Officer on 19.6.1990 the annual grade increments cannot be relased in favour of the petitioner till a decision regarding the period of suspension is taken. Petitioner served a notice for demand of justice on 23.2.1991 through his counsel, but no relief has been given to him.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 1.5.91 & notice was given to the respondents. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was given 6 weeks time to file reply on 2.8.91. Today the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate states that reply has not been prepared and she is not in a position to file the same. However, on the basis of the record, which is in her possession, she has stated that the charge sheet for enquiry under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules has been issued to the petitioner on 2.5.1991.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that denial of annual grade increments to the petitioner only on the ground that no decision had been taken regarding regularisation of the period of suspension is wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional. He has referred to the judgment of Kan Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1989 (1) R.L.R. 111 and submitted that the Division Bench of the Court has already held that even during the period of suspension, a person is entitled to annual grade increments because suspension under Rule 13 of 1958 Rules is not a punishment.
4. No order for withholding of annual gradements of the petitioner has been passed on the basis of a disciplinary action taken against him. In the absence of any such order, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his annual grade increments. He further submitted that merely on the basis of contemplation of an enquiry, he could not have been denied the benefit of selection grade after completion of requisite period of service. The fact that persons junior to him have been given the benefits without consideration of the case of the petitioner, amounts to discrimination.
5. Learned Deputy Government Advocate on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is facing inquiry for serious charges. The charge sheet has now been issued by the competent authority and, therefore, he cannot be given annual grade increments or selection grade.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. In my opinion the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Clearly the petitioner had remained under suspension for a period between 14.7.1987 to 2.2.1988. He was not under suspension thereafter. No charge sheet was given to him for a period of more than 4 years after the issuance of order of suspension. Therefore there could be no justification for with holding annual grade increments, which fell to the petitioner in the month of December 1988, Dec. 1989 and December, 1990. Even for the period of suspension, the petitioner could not have been deprived of his annual grade increments, which fell due to him in December, 1987 in the light of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kan Singh Bhati’s case (supra). It is therefore, held that the action of the respondents in withholding annual grade increments of the petitioner from December, 1987 is patently illegal and unjustified.
7. Regarding grant of selection grade also, I am of the opinion, the petitioner has been discriminated. Admittedly, no inquiry was pending against the petitioner on 1.9.1988 i.e. the date on which the persons junior to him have been allowed selection grade by order dated 14.3.1990 – Mere contemplation of departmental enquiry cannot be a ground for denial of selection grade. A departmental enquiry can be said to have been initiated only when a charge sheet is served on a delinquent employee. This principle is well settled in the light of the decision in P.N. Nayar v. Union of India and Ors. ce SLR 219. The so-called inquiry, which was contemplateted in 1987 could not have been treated as the basis for denial of selection grade to the petitioner in view of the fact that the charge sheet has in-fact been issued on 2.5.91 only. It hardly need be emphasised that in case the petitioner is found guilty on basis of enquiry, which is held against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 2.5.1991, the competent authority will be free to impose any penalty in its discretion. However, so far as denial of selection grade is concerned, there is no justifiable ground for the action of the respondents. In my opinion, the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination by being denied the benefit of selection grade.
8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. It is declared that denial of annual grade increments from December, 1987 onwards & also the denial of selection grade to the petitioner is contrary to law and is unjustified. Respondents are directed to release the annual grade increments to the petitioner and also to give him selection grade within a period of 3 months of the date of presentation of copy of this order. Arrears shall also be paid to the petitioner within next one month.
9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.