Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Khem Chand vs Union Of India on 25 September, 1962
The Metropolitan Magistrate vide his aforesaid judgment dated 22.10.2009 acquitted the applicant of all the charges holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge. The information given to the DPC that as on 17.1.2001 the charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant in a criminal case was not correct. Therefore, the respondents should have granted him the 3rd stagnation increment of Rs.200/- w.e.f. 1.1.2002 in the scale of Rs.6500-10,500 raising his pay from 10,900 to 11,100/- as he has already been granted two stagnation increments in the same scale. Even otherwise, the issue regarding grant of increments during the suspension period has already been considered by various Courts and this Tribunal. As laid down by the Apex Court in Khem Chand vs. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 687, the effect of an order of suspension is that a Government servant is is not permitted to work but he continues to be a member of the service. Under FR 53, a government servant under suspension shall be entitled to a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary.
Mritunjai Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 20 August, 1970
In Mritunjai Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 1971 (2) SLR 523, the Allahabad High Court held that when a government servant was under suspension and as the contract of service of the employee contravenes though he was under suspension, increment should be allowed ordinarily to be drawn unless it is withheld and the subsistence allowance had to be calculated accordingly.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.C. Misra vs Union Of India Through on 20 December, 2010
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the counsel for applicant that withholding of increment is a minor penalty and in the absence of such an order by the competent authority, the increments which are payable to an employee on year to year basis cannot be withheld. We do not find any support for the argument of the respondents that the releasing of increments under FR 24 is subject to the provisions contained in FRs 26, 53 & 54 as this Tribunal has already taken a view in this matter in OA-1056/2008 (supra) and the said view has already been upheld by the High Court in its judgment dated 15.2.2010 in WP (C) No.9042/2009 (supra). We are, therefore, of the considered view that applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought by him. Accordingly, we allow this OA and direct the respondents to release all the increments which have fallen due during the period of his suspension as provided under FR 54 for the purpose of computing his subsistence allowance. The respondents shall work out the arrears thus payable to the applicant in terms of the aforesaid directions and the same shall be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
1