Allowed

Joginder Pal v. State of Haryana & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2011CWP/20093/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a prayer for the increase of subsistence allowance. The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary as it failed to record reasons for denying the benefit mandated under Rule 7.2(1).

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner's case within four months for grant of claimed benefits.

Joginder Pal Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 8.2.2011

Joginder Pal

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

The petitioner has impugned order dated 1.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) by which his prayer for the increase of subsistence allowance has been declined. The petitioner places reliance on Rule 7.2(1) to say that if the period of suspension is not prolonged for the reasons which can be attributed to the delinquent employee then in such an eventuality, the subsistence allowance has to be increased after the period of six months. Rule 7.2(1) is extracted herebelow:-

¶14

“ 7.2(1) A Government employee under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely :-

¶15

(i) in the case of a Warrant Officer in civil employ

¶16

who is liable to revert to military duty, the pay and allowance to which would have been entitled had he been suspended, while in military employment.

¶17

(ii) in the case of any other Government employee-

¶18

(a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to

¶19

CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶20

the leave salary which the Government employee would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay, and in addition dearness allowance, if admissible. On the basis of such leave salary: provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first six months as follows:-

¶21

(i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, I the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government employee.

¶22

(ii)the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the peoird of the first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government employee.

¶23

(iii)The rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased, or as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under Clause (i) and (ii) above;

¶24

b) any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government

¶25

CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 3

¶26

employee was in receipt of the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner while making reference to Annexure P-2 contends that no reasons whatsoever have been given for denial of this benefit to him.

¶28

Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have filed a reply in which except for reiterating their decision not to grant any further increased benefit of subsistence allowance, no reasons have been given for denial thereof. The Court then asked the respondents to file an affidavit to justify the denial of this benefit to the petitioner. The affidavit was filed on 10.12.2010 which again does not reveal any reason for denial of the benefit to the petitioner.

¶29

Having regard to the aforesaid and upon due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Rule 7.2(1) is unambiguous. The competent authority has the power to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of first six months as per the following criteria:-

¶30

¶31

(ii)the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence

¶32

CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 4

¶33

allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government employee. (iii)The rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased, or as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under Clause (i) and (ii) above;

¶34

b) any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government employee was in receipt of the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances.”

¶35

It is thus evident that the competent authority while resorting to taking a decision in this regard must justify its action of increase of the subsistence allowance in the eventuality of its coming to such a conclusion and on the same parity of logic has to give reasons if the benefit is being denied to an employee. The order being silent on this aspect can at best be termed to be arbitrary and therefore deserves to be set aside.

¶36

Ordered accordingly.

¶37

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefits which have been claimed by him in the instant petition.

¶38

Let needful be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶39

February 08 , 2011 rekha

¶40

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Joginder Pal v. State of Haryana & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Pal v. State of Haryana & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Geeta Senior Secondary School Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Maharaja Aggarsain Sr. Sec. School Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhag Singh Vs Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University and Ors.

Bramhm Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Ors.