it2025_00346 — As per Rule 53 (1) (ii) (a) (i) of Chapter VIII of FR & SR, a suspended employee is entitled for Subsistence Allowance at such rate as ordered by suspending authority which should be reviewed by that authority in terms of that rule once in every three months

As per Rule 53 (1)

(ii)

(a)

(i) of Chapter VIII of FR & SR, a suspended employee is entitled for Subsistence Allowance at such rate as ordered by suspending authority which should be reviewed by that authority in terms of that rule once in every three months — This chunk discusses a memorandum issued in 1959, which requires government authorities to pass an order regarding subsistence allowance when prolonging an officer's suspension under Rule 53(1)(ii)(a... — Facts: The Applicant, a Postal Assistant was placed under suspension by Order, dated 23-10-2009 against which he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1500 of 2009. The Tribunal allowed the OA. Even then he was not paid his salary for the period 23-10-2009 to 30-12-2009. Hence he filed O.A. No. 773 of 2010 seeking direction for release of salary for the above period which is pending. He was again placed under suspension with effect from 31-12-2009 against which he filed O.A. No. 770 of 2010 which is pending. In that OA, he complained for not taking him back to service but placed on suspension once again. A person not in service cannot be suspended states the Applicant. In the present OA, he alleges that neither any intimation has been given to him nor any order has been conveyed regarding extension of suspension order beyond 90 days. No order had also been issued enhancing his Subsistence Allowance. Thus Rule 53 (1)

(ii)

(a)

(i) of FR & SR, which states that after expiry of 90 days of suspension, the authority is bound to pass an order either increasing the Subsistence Allowance or to pass an order with reasons for not doing, is violated. His representation to that effect is not answered violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The Respondents filed a detailed counter. The Tribunal noted the facts of the case as above. It also noted that no charge-sheet had also been issued. The Respondents submit that the Competent Authority by his Order, dated 16-8-2010 had decided to continue his suspension on review for a further period of 180 days which was further extended for 180 days more. Hence no rule is violated. Rule 53 (1)

(ii)

(a) reads as below: "

(i) the amount of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first three months, if, in 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 servant;

(ii) the amount of Subsistence Allowance, may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the Subsistence Allowance admissible during the period of the first three 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 servant." The above rule was subsequently reviewed and modified by G.I., M.F., O.M. No. 15 (16)-E. IV/58, dated 16-2-1959. The relevant part of this memorandum states that if the Competent Authority did not consider case of the officer who was placed under suspension, it can either involve serious hardship to the employee or invite unnecessary expenditure to the Governments, therefore, the Government has shown his concern that the Competent Authority in terms of FR & SR 53 (1)

(ii)

(a) is required to pass an order in accordance with the stated rule. Hence by Amendment Order, dated 23-8-1979, it is specifically stated that if the Government authority after review decided to prolong suspension, then an order is to be passed with regard to Subsistence Allowance to be paid to an officer who was placed under suspension under FR 53. This rule is reproduced verbatim in the judgment. The Applicant placed under suspension on 31-12-2009 is continuing as such without indicating any reason for prolonged suspension and no mention is also given either to increase or decrease Subsistence Allowance. The Committee which met on 22-3-2010 and 10-9-2010 only recommends continuing suspension for the further period of 180 days. Even while considering his representation, dated 15-7-2010 which was rejected on 16-8-2010, no reasons has been given in regard to his Subsistence Allowance. The Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and another [ 1964 AIR (SC) 787 ] and in the case of B.R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra [ 1968 AIR (SC) 800 ] held that "the employee who was placed under suspension is entitled for Subsistence Allowance at such rate as the suspending authority may direct but not exceed 1⁄4 th of his pay", meaning thereby the person who was placed under suspension is entitled for Subsistence Allowance in terms of the Rule applicable to the department.