3.Further, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the contesting respondent in the writ petition, on instructions would submit that the petitioner was suspended from service with effect from February 2020 and from that date he was paid the subsistence allowance at the rate of 50%. Thereafter, from October 2020 till July 2021, the enhanced subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% had been paid continuously, and in so far as in the month of August 2021, the amount would be credited to the account of the petitioner within two days, thereby, without any arrears or due, continuously the subsistence allowance has been paid. However, the controversy arose in this case is even though 50% and subsequently 75% of the subsistence allowance continuously being paid to the petitioner, the petitioner insisted that after 6 months period of suspension, if it is prolonged, the petitioner/employee would be entitled to get 100% subsistence allowance as per the provisions of the Subsistence Allowance Act. Therefore, by relying upon such provision, he seeks disbursal of 100 % subsistence allowance after 6 months period and since that has not been adjusted by the respondent and only 75 % of the subsistence allowance has been paid. He submits that it is the violation.
