Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Parmod Kumar Babbar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 10 April, 2023
1
OA No. 2726/2021
Item No.15/C-6
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2726/2021
Friday, this the 10th day of April, 2023
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
PARMOD KUMAR BABBAR,
PHARMACIST (Group C), GNCTD
AGE YEARS 43
S/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BABBAR
R/O RZ-2/230, DAYAL PARK
WEST SAGARPUR, NEW DELHI-110046
(M:9891553347)
...Applicant
(By advocate: Mr. Suresh Sharma)
Versus
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
TERRITORY OF DELHI
DELHI SACHIVALAYA
NEW DELHI-110002
2. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER
DIRECTOR GENERAL (PRISONS)
PRISON HEADQUARTERS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
NEAR LAJWANTI GARDEN CHOWK
JANKAPURI,
NEW DELHI-110064.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES
GOVERNMETN OF NCT OF DELHI
F-17, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI.
...Respondents
(Through: Mr. H.A. Khan, Advocate)
2
OA No. 2726/2021
Item No.15/C-6
O R D E R (ORAL)
The present OA has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 07.10.2021 rejecting the request of the applicant for enhancement of his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, beyond the period of 90 days.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as Pharmacist with the respondents' organization. The respondents suspended the applicant on 24.12.2020 and a charge memo was issued on 04.06.2021. The disciplinary proceedings are going on after appointment of IO and PO. The claim of the applicant is that there are several hearings in the disciplinary case but it has not progressed as fast as he was expecting. He made representation on 04.08.2021 and subsequently on 19.08.2021, for enhancement of the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. However, vide impugned order dated 07.10.2021, the respondents have declined to enhance subsistence allowance. Being aggrieved he has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash Order No.11/3/949/CJ/VIG/2020/1939 dated30.09.2021 Annexure A-01) as being arbitrary, illegal and thus non est,
(ii) To direct the respondents to enhance the Subsistence Allowance from 50% to 75 % of .the leave salary which the 3 OA No. 2726/2021 Item No.15/C-6 applicant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition to dearness allowance, as per FR 53, for the period of Suspension after 90 days of initial suspension, and pay all the arrears on account thereof within a stipulated time period"
3. Notices were issued to the respondents who have filed their counter reply. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the counter reply of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant quoted FR 53 according to which the disciplinary authorities should enhance the subsistence allowance by a suitable amount not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first three months. In the opinion of said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the instant case, the counsel for the applicant stated that the disciplinary proceedings are going on at very tardy pace and the applicant is not responsible for such slow progress of the disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, the government authorities are generous and granting subsistence allowance if the suspension period is extended beyond the first three months. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following judgments:-
4OA No. 2726/2021
Item No.15/C-6
(i) Judgment dated 27.07.2020 of Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 13811/2019 titled Dr. Mahabir Prasad Yadav vs Lakshmibai College(Annexure A-08).
(ii) Judgments of Division Benches of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rohtas Singh VS.
State of Haryana &Ors., [2004 SCC On Line P&H 671 and Guirat Singh, B.D. & P.O. VS. State of Haryana, [1986 (3) S.L.R.35]{Annexure A-09(Colly.)}
(iii) Order dated 18 March, 2015 of Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in 0.A. No.513/2014 titled Ravinder Kumar Mirg Vs. Union of India (Annexure A-10).
(iv) Order dated 19 September, 2011 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA- 2662/2010 titled Sh. K.K. Saxena vs. Delhi Development Authority (Annexure A-11).
(v) Order dated 14 December, 2009 of Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam in O.A. No.112/09 titled K.Prasanna Kumar Vs Union Of India And Others (Annexure A-12).
5. In all the above quoted judgments, learned counsel for the applicant argued that when the delay in disciplinary 5 OA No. 2726/2021 Item No.15/C-6 proceedings is not on account of the government employee, it is the bounden duty of the government authority to enhance the subsistence allowance to 75% of the gross emoluments. He further submits that the order dated 07.10.2021 is a non-speaking order and hence, the relief sought in the present OA should be granted to the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that suspension has been revoked in respect of the applicant and in view of this the main grievance of the applicant has been taken care of. However, if this Tribunal finds fit, the respondents may consider his case as per prevailing rules and regulations treating the present OA as the representation of the applicant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the suspension of the applicant has been revoked, the financial stringencies pleaded by the applicant, and several orders/judgements by the various Courts and this Tribunal, such matter may be considered sympathetically by the respondents.
8. In the interest of justice the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the present OA as representation of the applicant and decide the same 6 OA No. 2726/2021 Item No.15/C-6 by passing appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /daya/