Kewal Ram vs Punjab National Bank And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2080 Del

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/Bank to revise his subsistence allowance in view of revised pay-scale as also to calculate the basic pay of the petitioner by adding the advance increment allowed by Regulation 5.3 (a) of the Punjab National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (in short 'the Regulations').

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent/Bank on 9.8.1976. On 3.8.1995, he was placed under suspension. On 4.11.1997, the respondent/Bank initiated departmental inquiry proceedings against the petitioner after serving a charge-sheet on him. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid inquiry proceedings by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.1004/1998 before this Court, wherein, vide order dated 16th August, 1999, the departmental inquiry proceedings were stayed. It is stated by the counsels for the parties that rule was issued in the aforesaid writ petition and the same is pending disposal.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner is entitled to receive revised subsistence allowance in view of the revision of pay-scale by the respondent/Bank in respect of the post that the petitioner was holding, namely, that of a Junior Manager. It is further stated by the counsel for the petitioner that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner by the respondent/Bank in continuing to pay the petitioner his subsistence allowance on his pay-scale at a lower level, which is contrary to the Regulation 5.3 (a) of the Regulations.

4. The aforesaid position is denied by the counsel for the respondent/Bank who relies on Regulation 14 of the Regulations, which deals with payment of subsistence allowance during suspension and states that the respondent/Bank is paying the petitioner suspension allowance on the basis of pay-scale which the petitioner was receiving on the date prior to his suspension. He further submits that Regulation 5.3 of the Regulations on which the petitioner has sought to place reliance is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the petitioner is governed by Regulation 14(b) of the Regulations.

5. It is relevant to refer to the aforesaid Regulations, on which both the parties seek to place reliance.

5.3 (a) All officers who are in bank's permanent service as on 1st November, 1993 will get one advance increment in the scale of pay. Officers who are on probation on 1st November, 1993 will get one advance increment one year after confirmation.

Note:

There shall be no change in the date of annual increment because of advance increment.

14. Subsistence Allowance During Suspension:

An officer employee who is placed under suspension shall, during the period of such suspension and subject to Sub-regulation (2) to (4) be entitled to receive payment from the bank by way of subsistence allowance on the following scale:

(a) Basic Pay:

(i) For the first three months of suspension, 1/3 of the basic pay which the officer employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension irrespective of the nature of enquiry;

(ii) For the subsequent period after 3 months from the date of suspension.

(b) Allowances:

For the entire period of suspension, dearness allowance and other allowance (excepting conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance and special allowance) will be calculated on the reduced pay as specified in (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) above and at the prevailing rates or at rates applicable to similar category of officers.

6. It is not disputed by either side that as on 1.8.1993, the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.7,130/-. When the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.8.1995, his basic pay was Rs.7,820/-. Counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that in terms of the provisions of Regulation 14, the petitioner is being paid suspension allowance calculated on the aforesaid basic pay. A perusal of Regulation 14 makes it manifest that an officer/employee who is placed under suspension shall, during the suspension period, be entitled to receive payment of 1/3rd of the basic pay from the bank by way of subsistence allowance, for the first three months of suspension, 'which the officer employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension'. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the basic pay of the petitioner should be understood to mean the pay which has been revised from time to time subsequent to the suspension of the petitioner, is untenable. The respondent/Bank is under an obligation to pay subsistence allowance to an employee during his suspension period in terms of the Regulation 14(a), which leaves no manner of doubt that the same has to be paid on the basis of the basic pay as being received by the employee on the date prior to the date of his suspension. There is no ambiguity in the aforesaid Regulation and/or no mandate to the management to consider the basic pay as one fixed by the respondent/Bank from time to time after the suspension of the employee.

7. As regards the second plea of the petitioner to the effect that he is entitled to receive advance increment allowed to him vide Regulation 5.3 (a) of the Regulations, is concerned, again the said contention of the petitioner is unjustified for the reason that allowance payable to an employee under suspension is specifically covered by Regulation 14 (b) of the Regulations, which mandates that for the entire period of suspension the dearness allowance and other allowances, except those excluded in the Regulation, shall be calculated on the reduced pay as specified in Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) of Regulation 14. For the said reason, the plea of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to get one advance increment in the pay scale on the basis of the enhanced scale of pay, is rejected, being contrary to the rules.

8. However, the petitioner is justified in submitting that the respondent/Bank cannot withhold any increment due to the petitioner prior to his suspension. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/Bank has not added the increment amount of Rs.230/- due to him, to the basic pay of the petitioner on 1.11.1993 and thus, the figure of Rs.7,130/- calculated by the respondent as basic pay of the petitioner as on 1.8.1993, is incorrect and that the last drawn basic pay of the petitioner would be Rs.7,820/- + Rs.230/-. In case the respondent/Bank has not added the aforesaid amount of Rs.230/- while fixing the basic pay of the petitioner as on 1.8.1995, the respondent/Bank is directed to do the same and release the arrears, if any, payable to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to costs.