Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Pitabas Mahali vs Department Of Posts on 23 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023
Reserved on: 19.03.2026 Pronounced on: 23.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Pitabasa Mahali, aged about 37 years, S/o.
Late Sunaram Mahali, At-Padamapur, PO.
Rairangpur, PS. Rairangpur, Dist. Mayurbhanj,
PIN-757043.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mayurbhanj Division, At/Po. Baripada, Dist.
Mayurbhanj-757001.
3. The Superintendent of Post, Rairangpur
Division, At/Po. Rairangpur, Dist.
Mayurbhanj, PIN-757043.
......Respondents
For the applicants : Mr. Sailabala Jena, Counsel
For the respondents :Mr. B.K.Padhi, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
In exercise of power conferred under sub rule (1) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 2 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 Mayurbhanj Division, Baripada, placed the Applicant under suspension while he was working as Postal Assistant, Rairangpur Head Post Office, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj- 757043. He was sanctioned an amount equal to leave salary which he would have drawn had he been on leave on half pay towards Subsistence Allowance from the date of his suspension. The order of suspension was reviewed and extended by the competent authority from time to time. In terms of Rules, the amount of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant. The applicant submitted representation dated 24.01.2022 for enhancement of SA. The said representation was disposed of by Supdt. Of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj on 04.05.2022 and impugning and challenging the said order, the applicant filed OA No. 238 of 2022 before this Bench; which was disposed of on Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 24.01.2023 with liberty to the applicant to approach before the Appellate Authority. Applicant accordingly preferred appeal on 30.01.2023. The Appellate authority after recording the nitty-gritty of the entire matter vide order dated 01.03.2023 directed as under:
"However, from the discussions narrated above, it is clear that investigation is not yet completed. The appellant is cooperating in the investigation. As such, the period of suspension is prolonged for the reasons not directly attributable to the official. As such, the amount of subsistence allowance should be increased to 60% of the subsistence allowance now being paid to him with immediate effect". [emphasis supplied] BEING AGGRIEVED by the order dated 01.03.2023 in enhancing Subsistence Allowance from 50% to 60%, instead of 75%, that too from the date of order [i.e. 01.02.202023], the applicant has filed this Original Application praying for direction to the Respondent No.2 to pay him Subsistence Allowance @75% of his actual pay instead of 60%.
2. Respondents have filed their counter contesting/objecting the stand and prayer of the applicant Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 made in the OA. The theme and cream of the stand taken by the Respondents in their counter; which has been reiterated by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. His order of suspension was reviewed and extended from time to time by the competent authority, as per Rules. Meantime, charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was issued to him. The applicant in collaboration with others hatched a conspiracy for siphoning off Government money which was reported to CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, BBSR. The Applicant is not cooperating in the inquiry process and by filing unnecessary OÄs and representations lingering the disciplinary proceedings. The competent authority, after considering the matter in its entirety and keeping in mind the provisions of rules under FR 53 (1) (ii) (a) relating to enhancement of SA, vide Memo dated 01.03.2023, ordered for enhancement of SA from 50% to 60%. The SA granted to him is sufficient and need not be enhanced at this stage of the investigation. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 Respondents submitted that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Subsistence Allowance is paid to a suspended employee for sustenance of himself and his dependent family members. When, Rule and DoP&T OMs issued in this regard clearly provides for enhancement of SA if suspension continued beyond three months upto 75%, по such discretion is left with the authority concerned to deny the same and to sanction only upto 60% which action not only de hors the Rules, law but also contravenes the mandates enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution i.e. right to life is a fundamental right. Hence, he has prayed and insisted for issuance of direction to the Respondents to enhance his SA from 50% to 75% on completion of three months of his initial order of suspension and pay him the arrears accrued thereon within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Bench.
4. We have considered the submissions of the respective parties and perused the records.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023
5. Before expressing a view in the matter, we would like to state that the order of suspension does not put an end to an employee's service and he continues to be a member of the service though he is not permitted to work and is paid only Subsistence Allowance which is less than his salary. Fundamental Rule 53 provides for payment of salary at a reduced rate during the period of suspension. This constitutes the "Subsistence Allowance". Our mind is reminiscent to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr, AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1416; wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by "suspension syndrome" and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilised and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick name of 'Subsistence Allowance', so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court, in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 328 made the following observations with regard to Subsistence Allowance:Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 "An order of suspension of a government servant does not put an end to his service under the government. He continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension. The real effect of suspension as explained by this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India is that he continues to be a member of the government service but is not permitted to work and further during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance -- generally called subsistence allowance -- which is normally less than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a government servant injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the word 'Subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II at p. 2171 is "to remain alive as on food; to continue to exist". "Subsistence" means -- means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood."
(Emphasis supplied) If, therefore, even that amount is not paid, then the very object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the period of suspension would be frustrated. The act of non-payment of Subsistence Allowance can be likened to slow- poisoning as the employee, if not permitted to sustain himself on account of non-payment of Subsistence Allowance, would gradually starve himself to death." Furthermore it was observed as under:
"On joining Govt. service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favour of the Govt. The Govt., only because it has the power to appoint does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Govt. by providing job opportunities to its citizens only fulfils its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of the State Policy. The employee, on taking up an employment only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like Instrumentalities of the Govt. or Statutory or Autonomous Corporations etc., is regulated by the terms of contract of service or Service Rules made by the Central or the State Govt. under the Proviso Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 to Article 309 of the Constitution or other Statutory Rules including Certified Standing Orders. The fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution or the basic human rights are not surrendered by the employee. The provision for payment of Subsistence Allowance made in the Service Rules only ensures non- violation of the right to life of the employee. That was the reason why this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Chanderbhan 1983(3) SCR 337 = 1983 (3) SCC 387 = AIR 1983 SC 803 struck down a Service Rule which provided for payment of a nominal amount of Rupee one as Subsistence Allowance to an employee placed under suspension. This decision was followed in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs. Presiding Officer & Anr. (1986) 3 SCC 131 = 1986(2) SCR 1059 AIR 1986 SC 1168 and it was held in that case that if an employee could not attend the departmental proceedings on account of financial stringencies caused by non-payment of Subsistence Allowance, and thereby could not undertake a journey away from his home to attend the departmental proceedings, the order of punishment, including the whole proceedings would stand vitiated. For this purpose, reliance was also placed on an earlier decision in Ghanshyam Dass Shrivastva vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1973) 1 SCC 656 = AIR 1973 SC 1183."
6. FR 53 1(ii) (a) deals relating to payment of Subsistence Allowance wherein it is provided that "a Govt. servant under suspension is not paid any pay but is allowed a Subsistence Allowance at an amount equivalent to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or half pay and in addition dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary and that Subsistence allowance to be reviewed after 3 months and may be increased by upto 50 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 % of the allowance during the first 3 months or reduced by upto 50% of the allowance during the first 3 months.
7. On the provision of FR 53 (1) (ii) (a), the DoP&T issued OM stating therein as under:
PAY AND ALLOWANCES DURING THE SUSPENSION PERIOD A Government servant under suspension is not paid any pay but is allowed a Subsistence Allowance at an amount equivalent to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or half pay and in addition dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary. Where the period of suspension exceeds 3 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 three months as follows:
(i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first 3 months, if in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant;
(ii) (ii) the amount of subsistence allowance, may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first 3 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) (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-
clauses (i) and (ii) above.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 Chapter IX, FR 72 (b) also provides as under:
"Second or subsequent review(s) There is no objection to such review(s) being made by the competent authority. Such authority shall be competent to increase or decrease the rate of subsistence allowance upto 50 per cent of the amount of the subsistence allowance initially granted according to the circumstances of each case. A second or subsequent review can be made at any time at the discretion of the competent authority."
8. From the provisions quoted above, we find that no absolute right is conferred upon a suspended employee to claim that the enhancement of SA must and should be upto 75% rather under the rules discretion is vested with the authority concerned to consider increase the SA upto 75% go beyond and upto does not mean it should go beyond outer limit of 75%.
9. Similarly, we find that the authority concerned enhanced the SA from 50% to 60% by holding that the appellant is cooperating in the investigation and, that the period of suspension is prolonged for the reasons not directly attributable to the official whereas in the counter it has been stated that the applicant is not cooperating investigation. The enhancement was also made in the year Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/000537 of 2023 2023; even though the applicant has been continuing under suspension till date.
10. In view of the facts, Rule and law discussed above, for the ends of justice, we feel it appropriate to direct the Respondents to review the allowance paid to the applicant towards Subsistence Allowance and intimate the outcome of such review to the Applicant at an early date preferably within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
11. In the result, this OA stands disposed in the light of the directions made above. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
KB/PS
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2026.03.23 16:23:46 +05'30'