[2025:RJ-JP:32626] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 486/2011 Sudhir Srivastava S/o Shri Kailash Srivastava, aged about 60 years, Resident of House No. 125, Kailash Bhawan, Hawa Mahal Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. 3. The District Supply Officer, Collectoriate, Jaipur. The District Supply Officer, Collectoriate, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Rao, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the original writ petition, the petitioner prayed for following relief:- “(i) It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records related to the case and after examining the same the respondents may directed to released the salary of the petitioner for the period of 19.8.1996 to 22.8.1996, 16.9.1996 to 20.9.1996 and 1.10.2000 to 10.10.2000 and also directed to pay the full salary for the period of 1992 to 1995 along with interest. (ii) By the writ order Respondent may further directed to made fixation after releasing the Annual Grade increment to the petitioner from 1988 and by granting the Benefit of 5th & 6th Pay Commission. (iii) By writ order respondent may further directed to give the benefit of Selection scale to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 and 27 year of [2025:RJ-JP:32626] (2 of 5) [CW-486/2011] service and proper fixation may be made. (iv) By an appropriate order respondents may be directed to made proper pay fixation of the petitioner by granting him all consequentional benefits and released the arrears to the petitioners along with the interest of 18% with all benefit. (v) Any other prejudicial order, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and after examining the same be quashed and set aside. (vi) Any other beneficial order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents filed reply to the original memo of writ petition in which it was disclosed that the relief sought by the petitioner has been granted to him except benefit for 702 days which has been declared as 'unauthorized leaves'. The list of alleged unauthorized leaves as stated in the reply is as under:- "As per service records, the period of unauthorized leave is as follows:- 21.08.1993 to 12.09.1993----------------43 days 17.10.1993---------------------------------1day 23.10.1993 to 24.10.1993----------------2days 05.11.1993---------------------------------1day 20.11.1993 to 22.11.1993----------------2days 19.12.1993---------------------------------1day 24.12.1993 to 30.06.1994----------------188 days in July 1994--------------------------------29 days in August, 1994----------------------------27 days in September, 1994------------------------26 days in October, 1994----------------------------17 days 01.11.1994 to 31.10.95----------------------1 year" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed amendment application in order to modify prayer to the writ petition which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed amended memo of writ petition with following prayers:- “(i) It is therefore respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly be call and examine the entire record of the case and after examine the same, quash and set aside the action of [2025:RJ-JP:32626] (3 of 5) [CW-486/2011] therespondents, by which the respondents has declared the period of 702 days as mentioned in Para 3 of the reply as unauthorized leaves of the petitioner and regularize the aforesaid period with all consequential benefits and the respondents may directed to made the proper pay fixation of the petitioner and to pay the arrears along with 18% Interest. (ii) The respondents further be directed to release the interest on the arrears, retiral dues and other delayed payment which has been paid to the petitioner after his retirement from the date, the amount became due to the date on which it has been paid to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other prejudicial order, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and after examining the same be quashed and set aside. (iv) Any other beneficial order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Reply to the amended writ petition was filed by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get salary for the aforesaid 702 days yet, till this date no order whatsoever has been passed by the respondents for declaring the aforesaid period as an unauthorized leave. Learned counsel further submits that he has actually work for the aforesaid 702 days, he further adds that had there been such long absence, as indicated in the reply by the respondents, then certainly the respondents would have taken some action pursuant to Rule 86 of Rajasthan Service Rules but in the instant matter, at no point of time, the petitioner has received any notice whatsoever under the aforesaid Rules. [2025:RJ-JP:32626] (4 of 5) [CW-486/2011] 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has utterly failed to show any order or proceedings whereby, the aforesaid 702 days have been declared an unauthorized leave by the respondents. Learned counsel has further submitted that the record in respect of aforesaid days is not available in the office of the respondents. In the face of this admission, the foundational and jurisdictional facts to sustain the impugned action stand wholly unproven. 7. Such stand taken by the respondents is totally inconceivable and unacceptable. Without there being any record relating to aforesaid period, on what basis aforesaid 702 days have been treated as 'unauthorized leave' by the respondents, it has not been made clear by learned counsel for the respondents. If no notice under Rule 86 was issued and no speaking order exists identifying dates, reasons and the basis for treating the period as unauthorized. The respondents cannot be allowed to raise a bare objection to defeat the petitioner's entitlements. The burden to justify the deprivation of pay lies on the respondents, who assert alleged unauthorized absence, but they have utterly failed to discharge their burden. 8. Office of respondents is custodian of the record and is supposed to place the same before the Court along with reply to the writ petition but without producing the relevant record, any notice and reasoned determination order only by raising baseless and unfounded objections, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights for which he is otherwise entitled. 9. Under these circumstances finding no proper justification with regard to treating aforesaid 702 days as an [2025:RJ-JP:32626] (5 of 5) [CW-486/2011] unauthorized leave, this Court deems it proper to declare such action of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal. 10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to release pay and allowances of aforesaid 702 days to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been deprived of salary for the filled period for around 30 years, therefore, the respondents are also liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of actual realisation of the salary. The respondents shall also pass necessary orders by regularizing the aforesaid period and all consequential benefits shall also be granted to the petitioner. Compliance be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Such arbitrary action at the whims and fancies of the office of the respondents cannot be appreciated by this Court and on account of illegally depriving a retired person of his legitimate rights, this Court deems it proper to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /39