AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
OA No.2373/2019 was dismissed vide orders dated 14.08.2019. Applicant, however, sought review of those directions through this Review Application (RA). There has been delay in filing this RA (filed on 14.10.2019) and accordingly MA No.3700/2019 has also been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing RA, which is said to be 14 days.
The matter has been considered. The reasons put-forth for delay are not convincing. The MA is liable to be dismissed on account of delay.
However, even on merits, the pleadings put-forth now, have already been considered including in respect of the relied upon cases. However, there was no ratio which could be drawn and which could be made applicable to the instant OA. Accordingly, reference was omitted in the judgment.
The applicant has relied upon the following cases:
(i) Khem Chand v. Union of India & Ors., [AIR 1963 SC 687].
(ii) Mrintujai Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1971 (2) SLR 523].
(iii) H.S. Ramakrishna v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. [details/citation not given].
The relied upon case by Hon'ble Apex Court in Khem Chand (supra) decided on 25.09.1962, is in the context of rules that are to the effect that an employee who is dismissed and if as a result of court directions or order of Disciplinary Authority, if such dismissal is set aside and further enquiry is ordered to be conducted on the same charge which had led to his said dismissal, the period subsequent to such earlier dismissal shall be treated to be suspension.
This has no ratio applicable in the instant case, which is in respect of claiming higher subsistence allowance in such period of suspension.
5.1 The other relied upon case by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Mrintujai Singh (supra) decided on 20.08.1970, is in the context whether superior officer, who may be someone other than the Appointing Authority, has the power to put a Government servant under suspension and whether the suspended employee shall earn his increment during such period of suspension and how much subsistence allowance is to be paid during such suspension period. It was held that superior officer other than Appointing Authority, can suspend an employee and an employee shall earn his increment during such suspension. However, as for subsistence allowance during suspension period, Court ruled that only 1/3rd of pay otherwise admissible, is payable.
It is noted that in instant case competent authority decided to extend suspension and pay 50% of normal salary.
Accordingly, this case has no ratio applicable in the instant case.
5.2 In regard to the third relied upon case also, this Tribunal is of the view that in instant case the relevant committee while recommending continuation of suspension has consciously decided not to change the subsistence allowance. This cannot be faulted.
In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in the RA. The same is dismissed, in circulation, on account of delay as well as on merits. No costs.