Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ruhi Arora vs Corporate Affairs on 1 April, 2026
1
Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024
Court No. VI
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 110/2024
Reserved on :- 25.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 01.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
RUHI ARORA,
Aged about 36 years, D/o. Sh. Ravi Kumar
Presently working as Senior Technical Assistant,
(Under Suspension)
Office of Director General of Corporate Affairs,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Kota House Annexe, 1,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.
R/o. 5815, Aster Avenue, DLF Phase-IV,
Opposite Super Mart-I,
Gurugram, Haryana-122009
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Anish Dhingra
Mr. Mohit Kumar)
Versus
1. Union Of India,
Through Its Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Director General of Corporate Affairs,
Kota House Annexe, 1,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.
3. Under Secretary(Vigilance),
Ministry of Corporate Affairs 'A' Wing,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110011
SHILPI GUPTA
...Respondents
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01
13:32:14+05'30'
(By Advocate: Mr. Bijendra Singh Sharma)
2
Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024
Court No. VI
ORDER
By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) To quash the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2023 to the extent the same has contained the direction of status quo on the payment of subsistence allowance to the Applicant during the period of extended suspension on the ground of being contrary to the provisions of law;
b) Further direct the Respondents to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance to the Applicant @ 75% during the period of extended period of suspension on and from the date of expiry of the initial period of 90 days of suspension;
c) Award cost of the litigation as the Applicant has been constrained to file present application because of illegal order of the Respondents; and
d) To pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the premises of the present case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. He submitted that the applicant was posted as a Senior Technical Assistant with the respondent no. 2 and was arrested from her office by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 28.07.2023 on the basis of an FIR bearing no. RC 2182023A0011 dated 28.07.2023, which was filed under Sections: 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.2. Pursuant to the order of the competent Court of Jurisdiction the applicant was remanded under the police / judicial custody. On 16.08.2023 the applicant was put under suspension w.e.f. 28.07.2023 on the date SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30' she was arrested. The Applicant was placed under 3 Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024 Court No. VI deemed suspension solely on account of her detention, and not on any finding of misconduct. On 19.08.2023 the competent Court of Jurisdiction has granted her regular inter-alia bail. Vide order dated 04.09.2023 the applicant was granted the subsistence allowance @ 50% of her pay alongwith other allowances as per Rules. Her continued suspension and denial of enhanced subsistence allowance is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the governing service rules.
2.3. He stated that upon being granted regular bail by the competent Court, there existed no justifiable ground to continue prejudicial treatment against her. As per Rule 10(6) & (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with FR 53(1)(ii)(a), the subsistence allowance is liable to be reviewed and enhanced after the initial period of suspension, subject to conditions. On 25.10.2023 the respondents, while extending the suspension for a further period of 180 days i.e. upto 23.04.2024, mechanically imposed a status quo on subsistence allowance as granted vide order dated 04.09.2023, thereby defeating the statutory mandate. The denial of enhancement is penalizing in nature and violates principles of natural justice, especially in the absence of SHILPI GUPTAany delay attributable to the applicant. The applicant has SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30' 4 Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024 Court No. VI an unblemished service record and has fully cooperated with the investigation. The applicant has made a representation on 17.11.2023 to the respondents for revision of her subsistence allowance, yet the respondents have failed to respond. Aggrieved of the impugned action of the respondents the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking aforementioned reliefs.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present O.A. is not maintainable as it has been filed prematurely in contravention of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant submitted her representation on 17.11.2023, and without awaiting the statutory period of six months, filed the O.A. on
03.01.2024, thereby violating the mandatory limitation framework. On this ground alone, the present O.A. is deserves to be dismissed.
3.1. He further submitted that the applicant was placed under deemed suspension following her arrest by the CBI in a serious corruption case, and the investigation is still ongoing. The Review Committee, duly constituted under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 25.10.2023 after considering the gravity of allegations and likelihood SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30' of interference with investigation, recommended 5 Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024 Court No. VI extension of suspension and maintenance of status quo on subsistence allowance. The competent authority has acted strictly in accordance with these recommendations. 3.2. He also submitted that as per FR 53(1)(ii)(a), enhancement of subsistence allowance is not routine but discretionary, depending upon whether delay in proceedings is attributable to the employee or not. In the present case, the suspension arose due to the applicant's own conduct leading to arrest. Hence, no equitable claim for enhancement arises. The authority has recorded valid reasons for maintaining status quo, which is permissible under the rules.
3.3. He draw attention to the fact that the subsistence allowance has already been enhanced subsequently upon review w.e.f. 23.04.2024, demonstrating fairness on part of the Respondents. The Applicant continues to remain a member of service during suspension, as held by the Apex Court in AIR 1963 SC 687 in the matter of Khem Chand vs. Union of India. Thus, the impugned orders are legal, reasoned, and in consonance with applicable rules.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. SHILPI GUPTA5. Analysis SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30' 6 Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024 Court No. VI
(i) Consequent upon arrest of the applicant by CBI in a criminal case, the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 28.07.2023 in terms of Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The subsistence allowance @ of half pay, that is 50% of her basic pay plus other admissible allowances, was paid to her from the date of her deemed suspension.
(ii) By order dated 25.10.2023, the suspension of the applicant was extended for a further period of 180 days i.e. from 25.10.2023 to 23.04.2024, with the stipulation that subsistence allowance will continue at the same rate as mentioned in the earlier order dated 04.09.2023, subject to the conditions laid down in FR 53(1)(ii)(a) and other rules / instructions governing these payments.
(iii) Being aggrieved by the non-enhancement of her subsistence allowance, the applicant submitted a representation on 17.11.2023 before the higher authority on the ground that, according to FR 53(1)(ii)(a), the subsistence allowance has to be increased from 50% to 75% if there is no fault on the part of the employee. The rule also mandates that the competent authority is required to give specific reasons demonstrating that the delinquent was responsible for causing delay in the SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30' 7 Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024 Court No. VI proceedings, in case it seeks to deny enhancement of subsistence allowance to 75%.
(iv) The competent authority has enhanced the subsistence allowance in a subsequent review dated 22.04.2024 with effect from 23.04.2024 by an amount not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible to her during the extended period of suspension of 180 days. As she was in receipt of subsistence allowance at the rate of half pay, that is 50% of basic pay plus other admissible allowances, as a result of this enhancement, she is being paid subsistence allowance @ 75% of her basic pay plus other admissible allowances.
(v) This Tribunal is of the opinion that enhancement of subsistence allowance made under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a) is not a matter of right but lies within the discretion of the competent authority to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though it is equally well settled that such discretion must be exercised in a fair, reasonable, and informed manner, whether to grant or deny enhancement must be supported by logical reasons reflecting due application of mind.
SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30' 8 Item No. 26 O.A. No. 110/2024 Court No. VI
(vi) In the instant case, the respondents have already taken a decision to pay subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of her basic pay plus other admissible allowances during the extended period of her suspension with effect from 23.04.2024.
6. Conclusion 6.1. In these circumstances, the respondents have adhered to the request of the applicant, and thus, nothing survives to be adjudicated upon. As a result thereof, the present O.A. stands disposed of. 6.2. Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) Member (J) /SG/ SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.04.01 13:32:14+05'30'