Balaram Khuas vs State of Orissa

G.K. Misra, C.J.—The Petitioner was a District Public Relation Officer posted at Sambalpur. Certain charges were framed against him on 31-12-1963 in a disciplinary proceeding. He was suspended on 21-8-1964, but was reinstated on 5-7 -1971.

The Petitioner�s case is that during this period he was being paid only subsistence allowance, and no indication was given in the order, arnnexure-4, as to what would happen to his balance pay for the relevant period. The notification, annexure-4, dated 6th July, 1971 reinstating the Petitioner runs thus:

Shri Balaram Khuas, District Public Relations Officer, Sambalpur, under suspension, is reinstated and posted as Leave-cum-Training Reserve District Public Relations Officer at Bhubaneswar pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against him by the Political and Services (Vigilance) Department with effect from the date he actually takes over the charge of post under further orders.

The point raised by or. Mohanty is that Rule 91(1)(a) of the Orissa Service Code has not been complied with. The contention is correct.

The rule runs as follows:

91(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific Order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his retirement on superannuation as the case may be.

In the result, the writ application is allowed. A writ be issued to opposite party, the State of Orissa, to determine the pay of the Petitioner during the period of his suspension as enjoined by Rule 91(1)(a) of the Orissa Service Code.

In the circumstances there would be no order as to costs.

S. Acharya, J.

I agree.