Allowed

Venkatesh Iyer v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Gujarat HC10 Jul 2012SCA/12583/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Civil Application filed by a former employee seeking direction to quash dismissal orders and direct payment of subsistence allowance for suspension periods. The Court held the suspension order conflicting regarding allowance was arbitrary and awarded the allowance.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay subsistence allowance from 21.06.1992 to 31.07.1992 and 31.12.1997 to 09.09.1999 within two months.

Venkatesh Iyer Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

SCA/12583/2000

¶2

1/3

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12583 of 2000

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶8

=========================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made

¶13

thereunder ?

¶14

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge}

¶15

¶16

=========================================================

¶17

VENKATESH IYER - Petitioner(s)

¶18

Versus

¶19

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & 1 - Respondent(s)

¶20

=========================================================
Appearance :

¶21

MR BOMI H SETHNAfor Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RK MISHRA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.

¶22

=========================================================

¶23

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶24

Date : 10/07/2012

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to quash and set aside the order of dismissal dated 09.09.1999 passed by Manager and Competent Authority and consequential order dated 02.12.1999 passed by Deputy Manager, in appeal preferred by the

¶27

SCA/12583/2000

¶28

2/3

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

petitioner and further prayed for directing the respondents to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance for the period from 26.02.1992 to 31.07.1992 and 31.12.1997 to 09.09.1999.

¶31

Brief facts, as narrated in the petition are as under:-

¶32

2.1 The petitioner was service with the respondent no.1 at its office at Ahmedabad. The petitioner was arrested on 25.06.1992 under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 25.06.1992. Thereafter, he was released on bail on 27.07.1992 and his suspension order was revoked w.e.f. 31.07.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was again convicted on 31.12.1997 in Sessions Case No. 109 of 1993, by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, Ahmedabad. Again the petitioner was suspended w.e.f 31.12.1997, and bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The dismissal order was given to the petitioner on 09.09.1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, which came to be rejected upholding the order of imposing major penalty. The petitioner prayed for suspension allowance for the period from 01.01.1998 to 09.09.1999 I.e. from the restoration of and revocation of suspension till passing of order of dismissal.

¶33

3 Mr. Bomi M. Sethna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was dismissed on 09.09.1999 against which he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed on 02.12.1999.

¶34

Mr. R.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted petitioner was convicted and the order of conviction was confirmed by this Court. In that view of the matter, the dismissal order passed by the

¶35

SCA/12583/2000

¶36

3/3

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

respondents is just and proper and therefore, no interference is called for. He further submitted that in view of dismissal of the petitioner from the service, he is not entitled for subsistence allowance when the order of dismissal of the petitioner was upheld.

¶39

5 However, the relevant part of the suspension order which came to be passed by the Competent Authority on 20.07.1992, reads as under:-

¶40

“ During the period suspension on subsistence allowance will be allowed to Shri Iyer.

¶41

The condition imposed is during the period of suspension, no subsistence allowance is paid. Thus, in that view of the matter, the order is arbitrary and the petitioner will be entitled for subsistence allowance from 21.06.1992 to 31.07.1992 and 31.12.1997 to 09.09.1999.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the parties having gone through the material on record. this Court is of the considered view that the subsistence allowance as aforesaid will be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, by the respondents. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶43

[K.S.JHAVERI,J]

¶44

Siddharth//

Venkatesh Iyer v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh Iyer v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Commissioner Vs Hansaben K Parvadia

Nanjibhai B Vagadia Vs State of Gujarat

Rakesh a Saradva Vs Saurashtra University through Vice Chancellor

Sarvangi Vikas Kelvani Mandal Vs Secretary

Indravijaysinh B Gohil Vs Bhavnagar University

Pacific Education Trust Thro Authorised Signatory Ronak Vs All India Council for Technical Education Thro Regional Dire