Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India And Ors vs Chhagan Puri ... on 2 September, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur
[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.
[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-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
