Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. With regard to the increase in the Subsistence Allowance, Learned Counsel for Petitioner contends that the Review Committee has directed status quo on the enhancement of the allowance, based on Rule 2(c) of Suspension under Payment of Subsistence Allowance, CCS Rules or Rule 2(c) of the Instructions under FR 53 whereas, no such Rule 2(c) exists under the CCS Rules and therefore, there is no application of mind. In so far as reliance on Rule 2(c) in the Instructions under FR 53 is concerned, it is argued that the Instructions cannot be invoked to deny benefit available under the substantive provisions of FR 53. It is argued that under FR 53, Subsistence Allowance of the Petitioner should have been increased to 75% after three months of suspension, since the period of suspension was prolonged due to reasons attributable wholly to the Respondent. Reliance is placed on judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Mohd. Laeeq Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [2014 SCC online Raj 6760], wherein it has been held that the employer can deny Subsistence Allowance to an employee, only when reasons for prolonged suspension are attributable to the employee. Attention of the Court is drawn to provision FR 53(1)(ii)(a)(i), to argue that it is clearly stipulated in the Rule itself that the rate of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the allowance admissible during the first three months, if, in the opinion of the Authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the Government Servant.

11. With respect to the enhancement of Subsistence Allowance, Learned Counsel for Respondent contends that Petitioner is governed by Ordinance XII. Clause 7 of the said Ordinance stipulates that during the period of suspension, an employee would be entitled to Subsistence Allowance in accordance with the Rules applicable to Government employees. Learned Counsel for Respondent further states that Delhi University has its own Act and follows Government Rules only where its own provisions on the issue are silent. For the purpose of Subsistence Allowance, College follows the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and FR 53. It is contended that Office Memorandum dated 16.02.1959, mentioned in the Order and Instruction 2(c) under FR 53, clearly states that Subsistence Allowance rate may not be altered having regard to the circumstances of the case, and specific orders are to be passed, recording the circumstances under which the said decision is taken. The College is thus entitled to refuse enhancement in the rate of Subsistence Allowance and looking at the pending case and seriousness of allegations, the Review Committee, in its wisdom, declined to enhance the Allowance. Learned Counsel places reliance on a judgement of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Bhim Sen Singh vs. The University of Delhi & Ors., WP(C) 4639/2015, decided on 07.01.2016, to contend that it has been held by the Court that Ordinance XII which contains a provision for suspension does not contemplate any timelines for review of suspension and that CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will not be applicable to the University, save and to the extent they are adopted.

20. Moreover, even the said Executive Instructions require the College to give reasons for its decision, deviating from the path laid down in the Rule. As noted above, no reasons are forthcoming, which persuaded the Committee to maintain status quo in respect of the Subsistence Allowance. It is obvious that there has been no application of mind to the provisions of FR 53 while arriving at the decision. Competent Authority can take into consideration all facts and circumstances, but not to the exclusion of the provisions of FR 53. On all these counts, the impugned Review Committee Minutes cannot be sustained in law and deserve to be quashed.

21. The next issue is with regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner to the benefits of 7th Pay Commission under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. Before examining the said issue, it is relevant to take note of FR 23, FR 53 and the O.M. dated 27.08.1958. FR 53 has been extracted in the earlier part of the judgment. FR 23 and the O.M. read as under:-

"F.R.23. The holder of a post, the pay of which is changed, shall be treated as if he were transferred to a new post on the new pay: