it2025_00327 — It is a settled law that suspension notwithstanding non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of the suspended employee as he is demobilized and salary is also paid at reduced rate in the nickname of "Subsistence Allowance". The non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is against Sub-Rule 1 (a) (i) of FR 53 which lays down that the amount of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the Subsistence Allowa

IT Rules

It is a settled law that suspension notwithstanding non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of the suspended employee as he is demobilized and salary is also paid at reduced rate in the nickname of "Subsistence Allowance". The non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is against Sub-Rule 1
(a)
(i) of FR 53 which lays down that the amount of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the Subsistence Allowance admissible during the period of first three months if the suspension is not attributable to the fault of the employee — This chunk pertains to an appeal (O.A. No. 260/00363 of 2011) filed by a UDC against the non-payment of Subsistence Allowance during his suspension, which was against FR 53 regulations. The applicant... — Facts: The Applicant, a UDC in the office of R-2, Regional Director, ESI Corporation was arrested due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case and was enlarged on bail on 29-11-1997. As per Regulation 2
(a) of Regulation 10 of the ESI Corporation, he was granted Subsistence Allowance from 7-11-1997 at 50% of Pay and Allowances by Order, dated 17-12-1997 and he continued with the same Subsistence Allowance without any revision. He represented for revocation of suspension order and revision of Subsistence Allowance by appeal, dated 14-11-1999. Due to inaction of the Respondents, he filed O.A. No. 1040 of 2000 before Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal which was disposed of directing the Respondents therein to dispose of his representation. But his representation was rejected. Hence, he filed this OA to revise his Subsistence Allowance to 75% with effect from 1-1-1998 and to make payment along with arrears till 31-1-2005, i.e. the date he retired from service. He also prayed for revision of his provisional pension ( consequent to the revision of Subsistence Allowance) with effect from 1-9-2005 and pay arrears. He also filed M.A. No. 479 of 2011 for condoned of delay in filing this application. Reply has been filed. The Tribunal first went into the merit of jurisdiction of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal to hear this case as he was kept under suspension when he was employed in Calcutta. Admittedly, this OA has been filed by the Applicant after his retirement from service and is a permanent resident of Odisha and staying in Jaipur which comes under the jurisdiction of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. "Therefore, as per Rule 6 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, it cannot be said that this OA is not maintainable before this Bench (Cuttack Bench). Hence, the stand taken by Respondents that the application filed in Cuttack Bench is not maintainable is overruled". The prayer for financial benefit being a recurring cause of action and in this instant case the prayer of the Applicant is for increase of Subsistence Allowance and revision of pension based on the increased Subsistence Allowance, the Tribunal is in agreement with the petitioner that the point of limitation cannot stand as a bar to decide the matter as re-ruled by Apex Court. Hence, the second objection of Respondents is also overruled. The merit of the case was considered. Provision of FR 53 is noted and reproduced. This rules gives the entitlement to the payments as noted therein. FR 53
(ii) deals with payment of Subsistence Allowance to the suspended employee. The Subsistence Allowance may be varied after three months by authorities concerned if the suspension is not attributable to the suspended employee. A certificate is to be given by the suspended employee to the effect that he is not engaged in any other employment, business profession or vocation. Respondents vide Memorandum, dated 24/27th November, 2000 rejected the request for revision of the Subsistence Allowance due to pendency of the criminal case in a Court of Law against the Applicant. The above-said letter is reproduced in the judgment verbatim. On perusal of the letters produced by his Counsel it is evident that "the Applicant is very much co-operating with the investigation / trial of the matter before the appropriate Court of Law". Hence it was held:

IT Rules

It is a settled law that suspension notwithstanding non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of the suspended employee as he is demobilized and salary is also paid at reduced rate in the nickname of "Subsistence Allowance". The non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is against Sub-Rule 1
(a)
(i) of FR 53 which lays down that the amount of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the Subsistence Allowance admissible during the period of first three months if the suspension is not attributable to the fault of the employee — This chunk pertains to an appeal (O.A. No. 260/00363 of 2011) filed by a UDC against the non-payment of Subsistence Allowance during his suspension, which was against FR 53 regulations. The applicant... — Facts: The Applicant, a UDC in the office of R-2, Regional Director, ESI Corporation was arrested due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case and was enlarged on bail on 29-11-1997. As per Regulation 2
(a) of Regulation 10 of the ESI Corporation, he was granted Subsistence Allowance from 7-11-1997 at 50% of Pay and Allowances by Order, dated 17-12-1997 and he continued with the same Subsistence Allowance without any revision. He represented for revocation of suspension order and revision of Subsistence Allowance by appeal, dated 14-11-1999. Due to inaction of the Respondents, he filed O.A. No. 1040 of 2000 before Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal which was disposed of directing the Respondents therein to dispose of his representation. But his representation was rejected. Hence, he filed this OA to revise his Subsistence Allowance to 75% with effect from 1-1-1998 and to make payment along with arrears till 31-1-2005, i.e. the date he retired from service. He also prayed for revision of his provisional pension ( consequent to the revision of Subsistence Allowance) with effect from 1-9-2005 and pay arrears. He also filed M.A. No. 479 of 2011 for condoned of delay in filing this application. Reply has been filed. The Tribunal first went into the merit of jurisdiction of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal to hear this case as he was kept under suspension when he was employed in Calcutta. Admittedly, this OA has been filed by the Applicant after his retirement from service and is a permanent resident of Odisha and staying in Jaipur which comes under the jurisdiction of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal. "Therefore, as per Rule 6 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, it cannot be said that this OA is not maintainable before this Bench (Cuttack Bench). Hence, the stand taken by Respondents that the application filed in Cuttack Bench is not maintainable is overruled". The prayer for financial benefit being a recurring cause of action and in this instant case the prayer of the Applicant is for increase of Subsistence Allowance and revision of pension based on the increased Subsistence Allowance, the Tribunal is in agreement with the petitioner that the point of limitation cannot stand as a bar to decide the matter as re-ruled by Apex Court. Hence, the second objection of Respondents is also overruled. The merit of the case was considered. Provision of FR 53 is noted and reproduced. This rules gives the entitlement to the payments as noted therein. FR 53
(ii) deals with payment of Subsistence Allowance to the suspended employee. The Subsistence Allowance may be varied after three months by authorities concerned if the suspension is not attributable to the suspended employee. A certificate is to be given by the suspended employee to the effect that he is not engaged in any other employment, business profession or vocation. Respondents vide Memorandum, dated 24/27th November, 2000 rejected the request for revision of the Subsistence Allowance due to pendency of the criminal case in a Court of Law against the Applicant. The above-said letter is reproduced in the judgment verbatim. On perusal of the letters produced by his Counsel it is evident that "the Applicant is very much co-operating with the investigation / trial of the matter before the appropriate Court of Law". Hence it was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text