[2023:RJ-JD:27713-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2017
1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Post, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Postmaster General, Western Region, Jodhpur.
3. Director, Postal Services, O/o PMG Office Western Region, Jodhpur.
4. Superintendent Of Post Office, Nagaur Division, Nagaur.
5. Assistant Superintendent Of Post Offices, Sub Division, Nagaur, Pin- 341001.
----Petitioners Versus Chhagan Puri S/o Shri Genda Puri, By Caste Swami (OBC), R/o Village and Post Bhadana, District Nagaur (Office Address:- Working As EDMC At Badmer HO Under Put Off Duty). At Present Working As EDMC At Bhadana B.O. Under Nagaur HPO.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prasad Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 02/09/2023 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Bench Jodhpur, vide which, application preferred under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the respondent has been accepted and he has been granted the benefit of enhanced subsistence allowance of 50% on completion of 90 days of period of suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B.C.W.P. No.6892/2011 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kishan Lal) decided on 12.12.2012, whereby similar order as has been passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which is impugned herein was a subject matter of consideration.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:21:15 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:27713-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8934/2017] The Division Bench of this Court had set aside the said order and modified the same by reducing the amount of subsistence allowance by explaining that the subsistence allowance cannot be more than 50% of the wages. Directions were further given that the respondent would be entitled to the subsistence allowance as per the Rules. He, on this basis, contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms.
Although, learned counsel for the respondent has made an effort to distinguish the said judgment, reliance on which has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but we do not find any such distinction in the present case.
In light of the above, we accept the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and modify the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.04.2017 (Annex.4) to the extent that the respondent- Chhagan Puri will be paid subsistence allowance as per Rules during his suspension period.
The subsistence allowance to be paid to the respondent shall be calculated afresh and in case, there is any error, the same will be paid within a period of two months from today.
It is, however, clarified that since the respondent has already been dismissed from service after the inquiry, no recovery be effected from the respondent.
The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 40-Shahenshah/Anil Singh-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:21:15 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)