K. Nadarajan vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2011

[Cites 9, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

K. Nadarajan vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2011

Whether the petitioner, a retiree on re-employment or re- appointment and subsequent suspension from the re-employed or re- appointed post would be entitled to subsistence allowance in the absence of specific provisions therefor in the service conditions relating the said post? This question arises for consideration on the following factual matrix:- The petitioner retired from service as Deputy Inspector General of Police and thereafter, as per Ext.P1, he was appointed as the State Information Commissioner of the Kerala State Information Commission in terms of Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act). While continuing so, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P3 order dated 09.11.2012. A reference was then made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in terms of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the RTI Act for enquiry and report. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 31.01.2013 requesting for payment of subsistence allowance. Inaction thereon constrained the petitioner to make further W.P.(C).19557/13 2 representations and at last, his request for sanction of subsistence allowance was forwarded by the State of Kerala, the 1st respondent to the office of the Accountant General. Ext.P7 is the communication from the office of the Accountant General to the 1st respondent in response to the same. In Ext.P7 it is stated thus:- "In this context it may please be noted that there is no provision/orders to regulate the subsistence allowance to a re-employed officer. As the re-employment pay is fixed after deducting the pension, normal rules cannot be made applicable. Hence, Government may please examine the case and issue specific orders to regulate the subsistence allowance, if admissible in consultation with the Finance department". Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation before His excellency the Governor of Kerala and also before the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, essentially reiterating the request for payment of subsistence allowance. Ext.P11 is the letter dated 24.04.2013 from the Chief Secretary to the Accountant General stating that there is no precedence anywhere of a person being paid subsistence allowance in addition to pension. Under Ext.P11, it was suggested to restore the dearness relief on pension to the petitioner until he is reinstated as State Information Commissioner, obviously, if he is to be reinstated. In fact, as per Ext.P11 the Chief Secretary requested the W.P.(C).19557/13 3 Accountant General's office to allow only pension and dearness relief on pension to the petitioner during the period of suspension. Later, Ext.P12 communication was issued to the petitioner from the office of the 2nd respondent holding that he is not eligible for subsistence allowance. In short, Exts.P11 and P12 would reveal that the request of the petitioner was rejected with a reply that being a pensioner he is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. In Ext.P11 it is stated thus:

"Normally, when the salary is paid on reemployment the officer opts to get the Dearness Allowance on such salary and forgoes the Dearness Relief on pension. After suspension since the salary including DA is stopped, the Government feels that it will be in order if Sri.K.Nadarajan is allowed to draw DR on the pension of ` 26055/-. Since the present DR rate is 80%, this works out to a DR of ` 20844/- or total pension + DR of ` 46899/- which is clearly more than any subsistence allowance any ordinary Government servant on suspension would get. Hence, he may be allowed only pension + DR during the period of suspension."

2. Thus evidently, it was found that the amount of pension plus dearness relief allowable comes to `46,899/- which is clearly more than any subsistence allowance any ordinary government servant on suspension would get and that the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of monthly pension and therefore, he could not be said to be one without any means of subsistence. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was held entitled only to get pension plus dearness relief during the period of W.P.(C).19557/13 4 suspension, as per Ext.P11. As per Ext.P12, the petitioner was informed that at the time of appointment the petitioner was in receipt of pension on account of his retirement on superannuation from the previous service and it was taking into account the said fact that his salary and allowances were fixed, in tune with the provisions of section 16(5) of the RTI Act, on his appointment as State Information Commissioner. After stating that payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended State Information Commissioner drawing salary under section 16(5) of the RTI Act is also liable to be scrutinized under its first proviso it is held that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case viz., the petitioner being a pensioner receiving the pension of his previous service, he could not claim for subsistence allowance as a matter of right. After observing that subsistence allowance is paid to an employee under suspension only for sustaining his bare necessities it was held thereunder that as State Information Commissioner the petitioner would not be entitled to get the subsistence allowance while under suspension.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the orders in Exts.P11 and P12 virtually holding that he is not entitled to subsistence allowance owing to his being a pensioner, is palpably unsustainable. Evidently, the W.P.(C).19557/13 5 petitioner did not dispute the power to suspend him from the post, in this proceedings. True that, earlier he challenged the order of suspension unsuccessfully in W.P.(C)No.27844 of 2012 and the appeal filed viz., W.A.No.721 of 2013 is now pending. The reference made under sub section (1) of section 17 of the RTI Act to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for enquiry and report is also pending, it is submitted. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that going by the section 16(5) of the Act that deals with the salaries and allowances payable and other items and conditions of service the petitioner is entitled to get subsistence allowance at the same rate as applicable to Chief Secretary to the State Government if placed under suspension.

4. It is a common case that the salary and allowances of the petitioner on his appointment as the State Information Commissioner was fixed taking into account the provisions under section 16(5) and the first proviso thereunder. They read thus:-

16(5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of:-

(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner;

(b) the State Information Commissioner shall be W.P.(C).19557/13 6 the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government:-

Provided that if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of a pension (other than a disability or wound pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension equivalent of retirement gratuity.

(emphasis added)

5. The petitioner relied on section 16(5) giving specific emphasize to the term 'allowances' employed thereunder. According to the petitioner, the term 'allowances' occurred in section 16(5) would take in subsistence allowance as well and to buttress the said contention the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Kailash Nath reported in 1989(1) SCC 321. True that, the said decision is referred to in Ext.P12 order, as well. The contention of the petitioner is that even after referring to the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court paragraph 7 of the judgment which is crucial and relevant for W.P.(C).19557/13 7 the purpose of the issue was omitted to be taken note of in its true perspective while passing Ext.P12. Above all, it is contended that a scanning of Exts.P11 and P12 would reveal the fact that the respondents have virtually conceded to the entitlement of the petitioner to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. According to the petitioner, the sole reason to deny subsistence allowance, even after arriving at such conclusion, is that the total of his pension and dearness relief on pension is more than any subsistence allowance any Government servant would get, on suspension and also that his pension is more than the subsistence allowance, if it is to be granted. It is the further contention is that the said finding is factually incorrect besides being unsustainable in law. The learned Government Pleader resisted the claims and contentions and submitted that Kailash Nath's case (supra), referred to in Ext.P12, dealt with the entitlement of subsistence allowance of a regular employee during the period of his suspension and therefore, it is inapplicable in the case of the petitioner. The decision reported in Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner [1990 (2) KLT 175] is also relied on in support of the stand regarding disentitlement of the petitioner to subsistence allowance. According to the respondents, in the case of a re-employed person, he cannot claim subsistence W.P.(C).19557/13 8 allowance if placed under suspension from the re-employed post. In the absence of a specific enabling provision for payment of subsistence allowance under the RTI Act, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim subsistence allowance and that the very purpose of granting subsistence allowance is to enable an employee to subsist and by virtue of restoration of pension and dearness relief, the petitioner cannot claim subsistence allowance, it is submitted. It is also contended that pay and allowances of the Chief Secretary to the State Government is not fixed in terms of section 16(5) of the RTI Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot legally claim subsistence allowance at the rate applicable to Chief Secretary to the State Government in case of suspension. True that the Chief Secretary of the State gets entitlement to subsistence allowance, in case of suspension, not based on section 16(5) of the RTI Act and evidently, such entitlement as also the quantum of subsistence allowance in such circumstances is governed by the provisions under Rule 4(1) of the All India Service and Discipline Appeal, Rules 1969 (for short the 'Rules'). The 'Rules' is applicable only to a member of All India Services going by Rule 2(d) thereunder. Since the petitioner is presently not a member of All India Service, he cannot claim subsistence allowance under Rule 4(1) of the Rules. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while W.P.(C).19557/13 9 admitting the inapplicability of the Rules in the matter of payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner contended that the said rule cannot be said to be irrelevant and in fact, it is referred to solely for the purpose of identifying the rate of subsistence allowance payable to a Chief Secretary, in case of suspension and in view of the provision under section 16(5) of the RTI Act providing that the salaries and allowances of the State information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. The legislature was fully aware of the fact that the salary and allowances of the Chief Secretary to the State Government is not fixed in terms of the provisions under the RTI Act and what is specifically provided under section 16(5)(b) of RTI Act is that the salary and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of State Information Commissioner shall be that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner relied on the said provision solely to state that he is entitled to allowance including subsistence allowance, in case of suspension, at the rate applicable to the Chief Secretary to the State Government.

6. Evidently, section 17(2) of the RTI Act empowers the Governor of the State to suspend the State Information Commissioner. At W.P.(C).19557/13 10 the same time, admittedly, there is no specific provision in the RTI Act dealing with payment or otherwise of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The rival contentions call for careful scrutiny in the said circumstances. While the petitioner takes up the contention that the word 'allowances' employed in section 16(5) of the RTI Act would include 'subsistence allowance' as well and therefore, denial of subsistence allowance is illegal; the respondents, in resistance, contends that its denial is perfectly legal in the absence of specific mandate for its payment, in the RTI Act.

7. I will deal firstly, with the decision of this Court in Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank's case (supra) relied on by the learned Government Pleader to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. Evidently, that was a case where the Secretary of a Co-operative Society was placed under suspension. The question posed for consideration was whether he would fall within the category of employee for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act. Taking into account the duties and liabilities attached to the post of Secretary of a Co-operative Bank, the Division Bench held that it is, in fact, one in the managerial W.P.(C).19557/13 11 capacity and therefore, despite the fact that he is an employee of the bank, for the purposes of Subsistence Allowance Act, he could not be treated as an employee under Rule 198 (6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. A Secretary of a Co-operative Society when placed under suspension was not entitled to subsistence allowance at that time. Obviously, it is only after an the amendment brought to the Co-operative Societies Rules that a Secretary of the a Co-operative Bank got the right to claim subsistence allowance in case of suspension. In the context of the contentions, the following observation in the said decision assumes relevance:-

"It is unnecessary for us to consider in these proceedings as to whether the third respondent is entitled to receive any sums by way of subsistence allowance or otherwise during the period of suspension under any other law. That question is left open for decision in appropriate proceedings. We limit our decision to the applicability of the Subsistence Allowance Act to the facts of the present case.

8. It is thus evident that while holding against the entitlement of the petitioner therein to get subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act, his entitlement or otherwise to receive subsistence allowance under any other law was not considered by the Division Bench and most importantly, that question was left open for a decision in W.P.(C).19557/13 12 appropriate proceedings. In this case, there is no claim at all for subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that for deciding the issues involved in this case, the decision in Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank's case (supra) is having no relevance. The specific contention of the respondents is that subsistence allowance is to be paid to officers who have nothing to subsist if salary is stopped and when governmental payment towards pension and dearness relief is receivable and is being received by the petitioner, the claim for subsistence allowance is absolutely unsustainable. In the case of a regular employee under suspension subsistence allowance could be denied only in case of failure to furnish a certificate that he was not engaged in any employment, business, profession or vocation during which the claims relate. No provision has been brought to my notice which mandates for looking into a further question as to whether the concerned employee under suspension could subsist without getting the subsistence allowance on account of his income from any other source even after production of such a Certificate. In other words, the eligibility of a regular employee under suspension is not dependent upon his financial stability to sustain himself even without the subsistence allowance. In such circumstances, W.P.(C).19557/13 13 in the absence of any such inhibition in the case of a regular employee how can such a factor be looked into for denying subsistence allowance in the case of a re-employed person undergoing suspension especially in the absence of any specific provision to deprive him the entitlement to subsistence allowance. Evidently, the contention in this case is slightly different. It is the contention of the respondents that in the case of such a retiree who got re-employment and then placed under suspension from the re-employed post, his pension and dearness relief would be restored and as that amount is being paid by the Government a further claim for subsistence allowance is impermissible. At the same time, a perusal of Exts.P11 and P12 would definitely suggest substance in the contention of the petitioner that they did not carry any absolute finding against the entitlement of the petitioner to subsistence allowance on suspension except on the ground of receipt of pension and dearness relief on pension. Ext.P11 assigns the reason that total pension and dearness allowance payable to the petitioner is more than the subsistence allowance and Ext.P12 assigns the reason that since the petitioner could receive the pension of his previous service and dearness relief, there is no necessity to pay subsistence allowance to sustain the bare necessities. Evidently, Ext.P11 also carries such a reasoning. The W.P.(C).19557/13 14 respondents themselves would state that there is no precedent in the matter. When there is no precedent and when there is no specific provision for its denial how can a person be denied of subsistence allowance when the normal law is for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. In the absence of any specific provision for denying or disentitling a State Information Commissioner the subsistence allowance, the aforesaid reasonings in Exts.P11 and P12 cannot be a reason to deny subsistence allowance to the petitioner if he is otherwise eligible for and entitled to it. True that in such circumstances, the concerned person cannot claim both subsistence allowance and the pension plus dearness relief on pension. Therefore, I will have to proceed further to find the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to claim subsistence allowance.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised another contention in this context, to the effect that in the strict sense, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been re-employed or given re-appointment. The appointments of the State Information Commissioner and State Chief Information Commissioner are provided under section 15 of the RTI Act and going by section 15(5), State Chief Information Commissioner and W.P.(C).19557/13 15 the State Information Commissioner shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in any of the fields such as law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. Experience in administration and governance could not be achieved without a previous engagement in service and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, taking the pension factor of such persons who were in employment prior to the appointment as State Chief Information Commissioner/State Information Commissioner in the matter of payment of salaries and allowances would amount to discrimination. I do not think it necessary to make any endeavour to answer that question in the absence of any specific challenge against such fixation of salary and allowances by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that this proceedings carries only the challenge against denial of subsistence allowance and above all, owing to the existence of specific enabling provision in that regard under the first proviso to 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act, extracted hereinbefore, to take into account the pension of such an appointee for the purpose of fixation of his salary and allowances.

10. Now, I will consider the contention of the petitioner regarding W.P.(C).19557/13 16 his entitlement to get subsistence allowance during the period of suspension based on the expression 'allowances' occurring in section 16 (5) of the RTI Act and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath's case (supra), more particularly, paragraph 7 thereunder. The said paragraph, in so far as relevant, reads thus:-

"In the normal course what falls within the purview of the term "conditions of service" may be classified as salary or wages including subsistence allowance during suspension, the periodical increments, pay scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings."

11. In this context, the third proviso to section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act also assumes relevance and it reads thus:-

"Provided also that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment."

12. Going by the third proviso to section 16(5)(b), there can be no doubt with respect to the position that the respondents cannot vary the conditions of service to the detriment of the petitioner. Therefore, if the 'conditions of service' includes 'subsistence allowance' its denial would W.P.(C).19557/13 17 hit by third proviso to Rule 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act. The contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P11 and P12 virtually acknowledged the entitlement of the petitioner to subsistence allowance but it was denied citing a factually incorrect ground that the same is less than pension plus the dearness relief on pension restored to the petitioner. However, the discussion made above would reveal that while the Government disputes the liability to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner on account of absence of specific provision for such payment. the petitioner relies on the expression 'allowances' employed in 16(5) of the RTI Act to support his claim for payment of subsistence allowance. True that in the case dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Nath's case (supra), the subject matter was not the entitlement to subsistence allowance of a person who retired from service and then placed under suspension on his re-employment from the post held on re-employment. At the same time, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the said decision only to canvass the position that the term 'conditions of service' would take him subsistence allowance during suspension, as well. The contention is that even after referring to the decision in Kailash Nath's case (supra), the crucial aspect in paragraph 7 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the conditions of service could W.P.(C).19557/13 18 be classified into different rights including the right to get subsistence allowance during suspension, was not at all taken into account. In the decision in Balavantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC 800, the Apex Court considered the question as to the liability to pay subsistence allowance in the absence of an express term relating to payment during such suspension. In paragraph 2 thereunder, it was held thus:-

"It is equally well settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an enquiry pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of appointment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which it could be withheld."

13. In Balavantrai Ratilal Patel's case (supra), the Apex Court also considered the question regarding the quantum of subsistence allowance payable to an employee under suspension. In paragraph 4 ,it is further held thus:-

...............This principle applies with equal force in a ease where the Government is an employer and a public servant is an employee with this qualification that in view of the peculiar structural hierarchy of Government administration, the employer in the case of employment by Government must be held W.P.(C).19557/13 19 to be the authority which has the power to appoint the public servant concerned. It follows therefore that the authority entitled to appoint public servant is entitled to suspend him pending a departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding which may eventually result in a departmental enquiry against him. But what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the statute or statutory rule in that connection. If there is such a provision the payment during suspension will be in accordance therewith. But if there is no such provision, the public servant will be entitled to his full emoluments during the period of suspension. On general principles therefore the Government, like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one of two ways.

14. Thus, evidently, in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of a provision for payment during suspension in the statute or statutory rule the suspended employee would be entitled to his full emoluments during the period of suspension. On the other hand, it is held, if there is a provision the payment during suspension would be in accordance therewith. Thus, in unambiguous terms the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in either case the suspended person is entitled to get payment during the period of suspension. When the petitioner was placed under suspension availing the power under section 17(2) of the Act the respondents cannot canvass W.P.(C).19557/13 20 the absence of any jural relation to deny the subsistence allowance. In fact, the contention of the respondents, in substance, is that the respondents are liable to pay only the amount to sustain the bare necessities and it is payment of allowance during the period of suspension that is described as subsistence allowance. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents claim absence of any provision for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The petitioner relies on third proviso to section 16(5) of the RTI Act especially, the term 'allowances' to contend that it takes in subsistence allowance as well and also that the rate of allowance should be equivalent to the subsistence allowance payable to the Chief Secretary to the State if placed under suspension because salary and allowances of a State Information Commissioner is to be fixed at par with that of the Chief Secretary to the State as per the provisions under the RTI Act. The learned Government Pleader attempted to make a distinction based on the factual position that in this case, the petitioner is a re-employed person as he got appointment as State Information Commissioner only after his retirement from Police Department and he was appointed as he being a person having experience, wide knowledge and experience in administration and governance in terms of section 15(5) of the Act and section 17(2) of the W.P.(C).19557/13 21 Act provides the power to suspend. The attempt on the part of the learned Government Pleader is to canvass the position that the decision in Balavantrai Ratilal Patel's case (supra) would be applicable only in a case where an employee is placed under suspension in the absence of specific power to suspend and therefore, the said decision is inapplicable in a case where the power to suspend is specifically available and the person placed under suspension is a person appointed after his/her becoming a retiree from the previous employment and drawing pension for the previous service, at the time of appointment. In the light of what was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of the Kailash Nath's case (supra), the position that the term 'conditions of service' would include payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension is irrefragable. It is in this context that the third proviso to section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act assumes relevance as going by the same after the appointment of the State Information Commissioner his conditions of service shall not be varied to his disadvantage. In the circumstances, in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balavantrai Ratilal Patel's case (supra), Kailash Nath's case (supra) and third proviso to section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance during the W.P.(C).19557/13 22 period of suspension and it cannot be varied to his disadvantage. Going by Balavantrai Ratilal Patel's case (supra), if the contention of the respondents that there is no provision in the RTI Act to effect payment to the petitioner during the period of suspension viz., subsistence allowance, is accepted then it will have to be found that the petitioner is entitled to full remuneration payable to him even during the period of suspension. I am of the view that in the light of the very same decision this Court is to consider the question whether there is any provision under the RTI Act providing the scale of payment during the period of suspension. I am also of the considered view that there is sufficient clue in the RTI Act itself for identifying the scale of payment during the period of suspension. I have already noted the provisions under section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act and that going by the same, the State Information Commissioner is entitled to the same salary, allowances as also the conditions of service as that of the secretary to the State Government. I have also found that in the light of the decision in Balavantrai Ratilal Patel's case (supra), the 'conditions of service' include payment of subsistence allowance. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the cumulative effect of the decisions and provisions referred above is that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance at the same rate as has been payable to W.P.(C).19557/13 23 the Chief Secretary to the State Government if placed under suspension. To identify the amount payable to the Chief Secretary, the amount payable under Rule 4(1) of the Rules has to be looked into. When once it is found in terms of the provisions under section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act, the State Information Commissioner is to be paid the same amount as subsistence allowance. If that amount is higher than the amount obtained on totting up the pension plus the dearness relief on pension payable to the petitioner necessarily it has to be held that there is violation of the third proviso to section 16(5)(b) of the RTI Act.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner is entitled to get subsistence allowance despite the absence of specific provisions for payment of subsistence allowance in the RTI Act. The respondents shall, therefore, decide the quantum of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner in terms of this judgment and upon such quantification the amount of pension plus dearness relief on pension is found less than the said amount and the petitioner was being paid only the pension plus dearness relief on pension during the period of suspension, the arrears based on such quantification shall be paid to the petitioner. Such quantification and disbursement of arrears, if any, shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the W.P.(C).19557/13 24 date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the petitioner shall be paid the pension and the dearness relief as already ordered. It is also made clear that once such amount is arrived at, the petitioner need be paid only the differential amount between the same and the total of pension and dearness relief, in addition to the amount of pension and dearness allowance, as subsistence allowance.

Sd/-

                                         C.T. RAVIKUMAR
                                                (JUDGE)

spc/ RAV

W.P.(C).19557/13    25




                        C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.




                        JUDGMENT

                        September, 2010

W.P.(C).19557/13    26




                       C.T. RAVIKUMAR
                             (JUDGE)

spc/




                         C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

W.P.(C).19557/13    27




                        JUDGMENT

                        September, 2010

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court