Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(d) An   employee   under   suspension   shall   be  entitled to subsistence allowance equal  to   half   his   basic   wages   plus   dearness   allowance   for   the   period   of   his   suspension. If,  however,  the  period of   his   suspension   exceeds   3   months   for   reasons to be recorded in writing, for  which   the   employee   is   not   responsible   subsistence   allowance   will   be   at   the   rate   of   3/4th  of   his   basic   wages   plus   dearness   allowance   for   the   period  beyond   3   months.   Where,   however   the   employee   is   responsible   for   extension  of   the   suspension   period   beyond   3  months,   the   amount   of   his   subsistence   allowance may be 1/4 of his basic wages   plus  dearness  allowance for  the  period   beyond   3   months.   The   payment   of   subsistence   allowance   will   be   subject  to   a   written   declaration   by   the   employee that he is not engaged in any  other   employment   business,   profession  or vocation."

5. In view of the discussion, the fourth aspect of  grant of 25% subsistence allowance   at the time  of order of suspension as also the enhanced order  of 75% subsistence allowance of the pay and other  allowances   as   permitted   by   the   Court   from   the  date of suspension, requires consideration. 5.1 Clause   23   (IV)   of   the   Standing   Order  (Annexure­E   to   the   petition)   referred   to  hereinabove, in sub­clause (d) enumerates that  an employee under suspension shall be entitled  to subsistence allowance equal to half of his  basic   wages   plus   dearness   allowance   for   the  period   of   his   suspension.   If   such   period   of  suspension exceeds three months, for reasons to  be  recorded  in  writing   and  for  such  delay  if  the   employee   is   not   responsible,   subsistence  allowance would be paid at the rate of 3/4th of  C/LPA/1013/2012 JUDGMENT his basic wages plus dearness allowance for the  period beyond three months of suspension. And,  if the employee is responsible for extension of  such period of suspension beyond the period of  three months of suspension, such amount to be  reduced   to   1/4th  of   his   basic   wages   plus  dearness allowance for the period beyond three  months.

5.2 In   the   case   of  B.D.   Shetty   v.   M/s.   Ceat   Ltd.,   reported   in   AIR   2001   SC   2953,   the  Supreme   Court   was   considering   section   10­A(1)

(b)   of   the   Industrial   Employment   (Standing  Orders)   Act   and   held   that   the   employer   is  required   to   pay   subsistence   allowance   to   a  workman suspending pending inquiry at the rate  of 50% of wages for first 90 days and at the  rate   of   75   for   the   remaining   period   of  suspension.   If   the   delay   has   occurred   in  completion   of   departmental   proceedings,   which  is not  directly  attributable with the workman  concerned,   the   workman   cannot   be   denied  subsistence allowance at the rate of 75%. The  Apex   Court   has   also   given   instance   when   the  C/LPA/1013/2012 JUDGMENT conduct can be said to be directly attributed  to the delay in conducting the inquiry, as also  the importance of subsistence allowance during  the pendency of such proceedings. 5.3 The   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Principal   J.D.   Patil  Sangludkar  v.   Ganesh,   reported  in   (2003)   9   SCC   164,   dealt   with   the   payment   of  subsistence   allowance   during   the   suspension  pending   criminal   proceedings.   The   Court   held  that     the   provision   to   increase   the   rate   of  subsistence allowance pending suspension after  a   certain   stipulated   period   is   normally  envisaged   to   ensure   that   the   employer   or   the  management concerned does not indefinitely keep  an employee under the pretext of suspension out  of   his  office  without   completing   the   inquiry  and take advantage of its own lapse or delay in  completing the disciplinary proceedings.  5.4 In   the   case   of  Union   of   India   v.   R.K.  Chopra, reported in 2010 (2) SCC 763, the Apex  Court was dealing with a case where a suspended  employee   had   demanded   the   revision   of  C/LPA/1013/2012 JUDGMENT subsistence allowance based on the pay revision  coming   into   effect   during   the   suspension  period.   The   Apex   Court   denied   such   plea   by  holding   that   if   the   revision   of   pay   takes  effect   from   a   date   prior   to   the   date   of  suspension   of   a   Government   servant   then   he  would   be   entitled   to   benefit   of   increment   in  pay   and   in   the   subsistence   allowance   for   the  period of suspension, but if the revision scale  of pay takes effect from a date falling within  the   period   of   suspension   then   the   benefit   of  revision of pay and the subsistence allowances  will   accrue   to   him,   only   after   reinstatement  depending   on   the   fact   whether   the   period   of  suspension is treated as duty or not.  5.5 In   the   present   case,   admittedly   the  appellant   was   being   paid   the   subsistence  allowance at the rate of 25% of basic pay plus  dearness   allowance   during   the   suspension  period, which the respondent had continued even  beyond the period of three months. Admittedly,  the employee was not engaged in any employment  or business or profession or vocation. However,  C/LPA/1013/2012 JUDGMENT on   the   ground   that   the   criminal   prosecution  lodged   against   the   appellant   was   pending   and  since he was released after about a period of  one   year   and   five   months,   the   respondent­ Corporation   held   the   employee   responsible   for  continuation of the suspension and, therefore,  justified continuation of subsistence allowance  at   the   rate   of   1/4th  of   basic   wages   plus  dearness allowance. 

5.8 We   notice   that   no  charge   sheet  has   been  given to the appellant as mentioned hereinabove  in the departmental proceedings till the date  and,   therefore,   the   inquiry   proceedings   have  not   been   initiated   yet.   The   respondent­ Corporation,   therefore,   was   not   correct   in  interpreting that the order of suspension for a  period   beyond   three   months   was   extended   on  account   of   conduct   of   the   appellant   and,  therefore, it was consequently not justified in  denying the amount of subsistence allowance to  be   raised   to   3/4th  of   his   basic   wages   plus  dearness   allowance   as   provided   under   the  Standing   Order.   Appellant's   having   faced   the  criminal proceedings is the very basis for his  suspension and, therefore, for continuation of  his   suspension   beyond   the   period   of   three  months, the very ground cannot be put forth to  suspend   the   continuation   of   such   order   of  suspension.   There   is   nothing   on   record   to  indicate that the appellant has in any manner  C/LPA/1013/2012 JUDGMENT contributed   in   the   respondent   not   proceeding  with its departmental inquiry or acted in the  fashion   whereby   the   suspension   needed   to   be  continued. Therefore, the learned Single Judge  was,   in   our   opinion,   wholly   justified   in   not  upholding   the   version   of   the   respondent   in  denying higher amount of subsistence allowance  beyond   the   period   of   three   months.   However,  while   endorsing   such   views   of   the   learned  Single Judge, we notice that in the operative  portion of the order, the learned Single Judge  has granted subsistence allowance at the rate  of 75% of basic wages plus dearness allowance  for the entire period of suspension, subject to  his   fulfilling   the   condition   of   written  declaration that the appellant was not engaged  in any other employment or profession. As the  Standing   Order   required   grant   of   such   period  beyond   the   period   of   three   months,   when   no  cause could be attributed to the appellant for  the period of suspension to exceed beyond three  months,   the   grant   of   75%   of   subsistence  allowance shall have to be on completion of the  C/LPA/1013/2012 JUDGMENT period of three months and not from the date of  suspension   and   to   that   limited   extent,   the  prayer sought for by the respondent­Corporation  in   respect   of   enhanced   subsistence   allowance  requires to be upheld.