Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V.S. Satheesachandrakumar vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 31 March, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00122/2014
Friday, this the 31st day of March, 2017.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. P. GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
V.S. Satheesachandrakumar,
Syamalalayam, T.C. 25/3456,
UR 65, Uppalam Road,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001. - Applicant
[By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil]
Versus
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
2. Union of India, represented by
the Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. - Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. P.G. Jayan, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 16.03.2017, the Tribunal
on 31.03.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER:
Per: Mr. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member This Original Application is filed claiming enhanced subsistence allowance @ 75% for the period 17.09.2007 to 24.12.2011 and also to sanction HRA and CCA from August 2010 onwards.
2. The applicant was placed under suspension on 19.06.2007. Though FR 53 provides for review of subsistence allowance on completion of 90 days of suspension, no review was undertaken. He was entitled to get 75% of subsistence allowance after the expiry of 90 days of suspension. No decision was taken by the authority concerned not to grant enhanced subsistence allowance. HRA and CCA due to the applicant were also deprived of without any notice. O.A 900/2013 was filed pointing out the same. It was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant. The applicant was given a personal hearing but an order was passed rejecting the representation. Hence, this Original Application is filed.
3. The respondents opposed the petition contending that the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 19.06.2007 as there was shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 14,74,238/-. The suspension of the applicant was periodically reviewed and on completion of the disciplinary inquiry the applicant was removed from service on 24.12.2011. The appeal was dismissed upholding the order of the disciplinary authority. The competent authority may increase by a suitable amount not exceeding 50% of the initial subsistence allowance, if in his opinion, the period of suspension has been prolonged, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to Government servant. The applicant was eligible for HRA and CCA to the first 180 days only at the prescribed rate. For the continued drawal of HRA and CCA the applicant should have submitted the certificates of the status of his domicile as required under para (d) below Rule 8 of HRA and CCA General Rules and orders. HRA and CCA were inadvertently drawn to him till August, 2010. Rules are applicable to all Central Government Departments.
4. The point for consideration is (1) whether the applicant is entitled to get the enhanced subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate of 75%.?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to get the HRA and CCA as claimed by him?
5. Though it was stated by the respondents in the reply statement that the periodical review was conducted no document whatsoever has been produced by the respondents to show that any periodical review of suspension was undertaken by them. No document has been produced to show whether any order was passed not to grant the enhanced rate of subsistence allowance. On expiry of the period of 90 days review has to be made by the authority concerned and a decision has to be rendered as to whether the subsistence allowance should be enhanced by 50% of the allowance originally granted. In the absence of any decision taken against the applicant, it has to be presumed that the applicant is entitled to get the subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate which will be 75% of the total (enhancement by 50% of the subsistence allowance of 50%). Therefore, applicant is entitled to get the subsistence allowance enhanced to 75%. The respondents are bound to pay the same to the applicant for the period from 17.09.2007 to 24.12.2011. Point No. 2:
6. The respondents contend that in order to substantiate the claim for HRA and CCA the applicant should have produced the copy of certificates on expiry of the period of 180 days. The respondents have further pointed out that applicant is a person against whom disciplinary action was taken and it was stated that a sum of Rs. 14,74,238/- was misappropriated by the applicant. Disciplinary action was taken against the applicant and he was found guilty. Challenging that order O.A. No. 449/2014 has been preferred. The respondents contend that the applicant is guilty of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 14,74,238/-.
7. Be that as it may, there is no case for the respondents that the applicant was not staying in the house which was till then occupied by the applicant. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the applicant continued his residence in the very same place, where he was staying at the time when he was placed under suspension. If so, the applicant is entitled to get the HRA at the same rate as he was drawing on the date of order of the suspension. Applying the same principle, the applicant is also entitled to the CCA (the City Compensatory Allowance) since no document has been produced by the respondents to substantiate that the CCA was given or that rule prohibits grant of CCA.
8. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the applicant had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 14,74,238/- and that in the disciplinary inquiry, he was found guilty and ordered his removal from service is not a matter to be gone into in this case. Whether the final order passed in that case is correct or not is a matter to be decided in the Original Application filed by the applicant challenging that order. That will be considered independently. The order passed in this case regarding the CCA and subsistence allowance will have no bearing on the decision to be rendered in O.A. No. 449/2014.
9. In view of what have been adverted to earlier the applicant is entitled to get the subsistence allowance at the rate specified earlier and also HRA and CCA which were not paid to the applicant. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that this order will have no bearing on O.A 449/2014. Time for payment is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 31st March, 2017.)
(Mrs. P. GOPINATH) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ax