Mukesh Gajbhiye vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1304 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Writ Petition (S) No. 1691 of 2022

      Mukesh Gajbhiye S/o Shri Kururam, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
      Village Dhanaura , Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home
       (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur,
       District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar,
       Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   3. The Inspector General Of Police, Durg (Range), District Durg
       Chhattisgarh.

   4. Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 14.03.2022

1. The two reliefs primarily sought by the petitioner in the present writ

petition is for considering the case of petitioner for enhancing the

subsistence allowance as it has been more than a year that the

petitioner stands suspended from service. The second relief is that in

the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary

and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 the respondent authorities

have to take an appropriate decision as regards the continuation of

the period of suspension.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary

(supra) has held that in the event the suspension period is prolonging

for a period of more than 90 days, the employer has to reconsider as

to whether there is any necessity in continuing with the suspension of

the employee concerned.

3. As regards the first relief, again it has been specifically provided

under the rules and the circulars of the State that if the departmental

enquiry is not concluded within a period 6 months or one year as the

case may be and the suspension of the concerned employee is

continued and the prolonging of the departmental enquiry is not on

account of any delay tactics adopted by the employee concerned, he

would be entitled for the enhanced rate of subsistence allowance. The

petitioner in the instant case has already approached the respondents

3 & 4 in this regard.

4. The State counsel, on the other hand, submits that in the event the

petitioner has made any representation in this regard, the same shall

be decided taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). He

submits that the claim of petitioner so far as grant of enhanced

subsistence allowance is concerned, shall also be considered and

decided at the earliest.

5. Given the submission by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition

as of now stands disposed of. The petitioner in addition to the

representation that he has already made shall make a fresh

representation to the respondents 3 & 4 within a period of 20 days

from today and the respondents 3 & 4 in turn shall consider the

representation of the petitioner on both the aspects i.e. for enhancing

the subsistence allowance and also for reconsidering the necessity of

continuing with the suspension of petitioner. Let an appropriate

decision be taken by the respondents 3 & 4 on the representation of

petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days from the

date of receipt of fresh representation of petitioner.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai