Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Old No. 156(L) of 1984 (New Appeal No 215/11 of 1986), decided or 22nd September, 1986.
‑‑S. 4‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4‑‑Period of suspension‑‑Subsistence allowance‑‑Increments due during suspension period to be counted towards pay‑‑Employee under suspension being on duty, has to remain present in office‑‑For period of suspension, increments, held, were to be reckoned towards pay of employee, and 50 per cent whereof, to be paid to such employee.
‑R. 54‑‑Application of‑‑Fundamental Rule 54, held, would apply only when employee was reinstated in service‑‑Where employee had not been reinstated, but compulsorily retired from service, R. 54, would not be attracted.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.4‑‑Entitlement to arrears of subsistence allowance‑‑Where employee under suspension was found to be entitled to arrears of subsistence allowance by adding increments earned during suspension period, such arrears were allowed by Service Tribunal in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Appellant in person.
Hafiz Tariq Naseem for the State.
Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1986.
‑‑The appellant, Muhammad Sharif, while serving as Accountant in the Office of the Accountant‑General, Punjab, was involved in a case under M.L.R.‑33 and was arrested on 17‑6‑1980. He was suspended from service the next day, i.e. 18‑6‑1980. After his arrest, he remained an under‑trial prisoner and then was sentenced to imprisonment, the period of which expired on 14‑5‑1982.
2. On his suspension with effect from 18‑6‑1980, the appellant was allowed subsistence allowance at one‑half of the last pay drawn and he continued to draw that allowance till finally he was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 17‑1‑1984, after having been proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules.
3. In the present appeal, the contention of the appellant is that during the period of suspension his increments were due on 1‑12‑1980, 1‑12‑1981, 1‑12‑1982 and 1‑12‑1983, which were not taken into consideration while paying him the subsistence allowance. The appellant's case in effect is that for the period of suspension, the increments should have been reckoned towards his pay and that he should have been allowed 50 per cent thereof.
4. On behalf of the respondent Government, the stand taken is that the appellant having been retired subsequently as a punishment and his period of suspension having been treated as leave of the kind due, he was not entitled to any increments, as no increment is allowed if a person is on leave.
5. In our opinion, the order of punishment is wholly irrelevant for determining the claim of the appellant in this case. What he wants is that his increments should have been counted towards his salary for determining the subsistence allowance. A person under suspension is on duty and has to remain present in the office. It is, therefore, wholly a fallacy to say that no increment can be added during the period of suspension. The learned counsel for State has referred to clause (b) of F.R.‑54, which provides that when a Government servant, who is suspended, is reinstated, he shall unless the reinstatement is an honourable acquittal, be entitled to such portion of such pay and allowances as the revising authority or the appellant authority may prescribe. FR‑54, in these circumstances, applies only when a person is reinstated. The appellant having not been reinstated, but compulsorily retired from service, the provisions of FR‑54 are not attracted. In these circumstances, therefore, we have to determine the admissibility of the subsistence allowance irrespective of the provisions of F.R‑54. The appellant having remained under suspension in our opinion, was entitled at least to 50 per cent of his salary as subsistence allowance. The order of retirement takes effect from the date it is passed and not from any earlier date. We are of the view that while allowing 50 per cent of the pay as subsistence allowance the increments due to the appellant during the period of suspension were admissible to him and his subsistence allowance had to be determined accordingly.
In view of the above facts, we allow this appeal and direct that the appellant be paid the arrears of subsistence allowance by adding the increments earned by him on 1‑12‑1980, 1‑12‑1981, 1‑12‑1982 and 1‑12‑1983.
A. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer