[2026:RJ-JP:17184] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6487/2026 Neeraj Sharma S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Kamla Colony, Bari Road, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Area, Near Civil Lines Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Municipal Council Dholpur, Through Its Commissioner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma. Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma. Ms. Khushboo Rathore. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Thory for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 23/04/2026 1. Heard on final disposal. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction on part of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner filed for revocation of suspension and reinstatement in light of the charge-sheet filed by the police. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provision of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules of 1958’), the respondent-Authority is required to review as [2026:RJ-JP:17184] (2 of 6) [CW-6487/2026] soon as the charge-sheet is filed in the criminal case relating to corruption matters. 4. In the present case, the petitioner was suspended prior to filing of the charge-sheet. As soon as the charge-sheet is filed, there is an obligation on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement by placing the material before the review committee. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Service Rules requires consideration of enhancement of subsistence allowance, if the suspension period exceeds six months. Since, in the present case, there is no consideration, on this ground also, the suspension is liable to be set aside and he is entitled for reinstatement. 6. To answer the said submission, it is required to refer to Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958, which reads as under:- "13. Suspension.– (5) Any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.” 7. A bare reading of Sub-Rule (5) of the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, shows that the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority has a power to revoke the suspension order at any time and there is no time limit prescribed in the said provision. 8. The direction sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondent-Authority to consider his representation. Such a direction would be issued only in case when there is any obligation and such an obligation is breached. On a bare reading of Sub-Rule (5) Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, [2026:RJ-JP:17184] (3 of 6) [CW-6487/2026] wherein, there is no obligation on the part of the Government to revoke such suspension in any time bound manner and there is no time stipulation. It is the choice of the Government. If there is any time stipulation under which such an obligation required to be discharged, if such an action is not done within the prescribed time, then there is a breach of obligation, resulting in issuance of mandamus to discharge their obligation, which is vested upon the respondents. 9. This provision is not a condition precedent by any time, however, it gives untenable power to the State to revoke suspension at any time considering the circumstances of the case, therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue mandamus for consideration. 10. Dealing with the second contention, in this regard Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Service Rules is relevant, which reads as under:- “53. Subsistence grant— (1) A Government servant under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely:-- (a) subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been leave on half pay and in addition dearness allowance based on such leave salary: Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds * [six months] the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first *[six months] as follows:— (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding to 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of .the first *[six months] if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be [2026:RJ-JP:17184] (4 of 6) [CW-6487/2026] recorded, in writing not directly, attributable to the Government servant; (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first * [six months] if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant (iii) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub clause (i) and (ii) above. (b) Any other compensatory allowances admissible from time to time on the basis of pay which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances. (2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate, that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation : Provided that in the case of a Government servant dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, who is deemed to have been placed or to continue to be under suspension from the date of such dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and who fails to produce such a certificate for any period or periods during which he is deemed to be placed or to continue to be under suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and other allowances equal to the amount by which earnings during such period or periods as the case may be, fall short of the amount of subsistence allowance and other allowances that would otherwise be admissible to him; where the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible to are equal to or less than the amount earned by him, nothing in this proviso shall apply to him.” 11. From a bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that there is a corresponding obligation on the part of the respondents to review the case of petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance over and above 50%, [2026:RJ-JP:17184] (5 of 6) [CW-6487/2026] which the petitioner has already received and that enhancement is required when the suspension is prolonged exceeding six months. In the present case, there is a suspension, which is over and above six months and the respondent-Authority is required to consider enhancement of subsistence allowance, however, it is not done and there is a breach. 12. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the compliance of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, is not done by considering the enhancement, the suspension gets vitiated. This argument is untenable and there is no provision making consequences of non- compliance of obligation to consider enhancement. The petitioner is already receiving subsistence allowance. If the enquiry is proceeded without subsistence allowance, the enquiry would be stayed, however, in the present case, there is no parallel enquiry. The petitioner’s suspension was only on account of his involvement in the corruption case, which is related to a red-handed trap of the third person, who allegedly collected the bribe at the behest of petitioner, who is discharging duties as a public servant and such demand has allegedly been made. Therefore, this Court finds that when there is no consequences prescribed under Rules, there cannot be automatic revocation for the simple reason of non-consideration of the case for enhancement of subsistence allowance. [2026:RJ-JP:17184] (6 of 6) [CW-6487/2026] 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Manvendra Singh : D.P. Special Appeal Writ No.1111/2019, decided on 04.02.2020, wherein the principle has been laid down that the power under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 is an independent power, which is not controlled by any circular. This proposition is not in dispute. The circular cannot override the expressed provisions of the Rules. The power under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 is independent power. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The direction to issue a mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner, is rejected. However, there shall be a direction to the respondent-Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance over and above 50% as the petitioner’s suspension prolonged exceeding six months and such an order required to be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 15. Misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J PKS/9