The single judge bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs Director General of Police, Punjab, Sector-9, Chandigarh, and another held that Subsistence allowance is not a largess as handed out by the State, but a statutory right as provided for under the Rules. Denial of subsistence allowance amounts to gross violation of the statutory and Constitutional right of an employee.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as the constable in the Punjab Police. Thereafter, he went on leave for 30 days and reported back to the duty but he didn’t present himself. Earlier FIR was registered against him under Sections 7, 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein he was convicted and ordered to be sent for imprisonment for 4 years.
Due to the arrest, he was unable to join the duty. Thereafter, it was directed that he would be entitled to get half of his salary for the first six months or half of his salary equivalent to being on leave and the departmental inquiry initiated was to be concluded within a period of three months. The petitioner was dismissed from the service and the superintended of police directed that the petitioner would not be entitled to get subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. Furthermore, the appeal was filed before the DGP, Punjab however, the same was dismissed.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
“whether the petitioner, who was under suspension pending departmental inquiry and subsequently dismissed, would be entitled to subsistence allowance?”
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgment titled O.P. Gupta Versus Union of India, 1987 (4) SCC 340 in which it was held that
"An order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. He continues to be a number of the service in spite of the order of suspension. The real effect of the order of suspension as explained by this Court in Khem Chand Versus Union of India is that he continues to be a member of the Government service but is not permitted to work and further during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance - generally called subsistence allowance - Which is normally less than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a Government servant injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the word 'Subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II at page 2171 is "to remain alive as on food; to continue to exist". "Subsistence" means - means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood."
The court held that Subsistence allowance is not a largess as handed out by the State, but a statutory right as provided for under the Rules. Denial of subsistence allowance amounts to gross violation of the statutory and Constitutional right of an employee. If the suspension period of the Government employee is to exceed beyond six months for the reasons which are not attributable to him, then the amount of subsistence allowance could be increased maximum to 50 per cent of the amount already received by him as subsistence allowance. It is further provided that the employee is to furnish a certificate to the effect that he is not gainfully employed during that particular period. In view of the rules, the petitioner is held entitled to the release of the subsistence allowance.
CASE NAME- Jagdish Singh Vs Director General of Police, Punjab
CITATION- CWP-1539-2017
CORUM- Justice Jaishree Thakur
DATE- 04.11.2223
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
