HIRA LAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated February 26, 1991 passed by the Commissioner(Slum & J.J.Wing), Delhi Development Authority, declining to pay the petitioner anything over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period when he was under suspension and not treating the same as spent on duty even though suspension had been revoked on July 25, 1989. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as LDC in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 on 19th October, 1974 in the Slum and JJ. Department of the DDA. On January 22, 1983 the petitioner was promoted as UDC. However, on September 1, 1984 he was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry On July 25, 1989 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked but without prejudice to the departmental proceedings anticipated against him for which he was earlier placed under suspension. Thereafter on April 9, 1990 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet. Since the petitioner was not paid full salary for the period of suspension, he represented to the authorities but his representation was rejected on February 26, 1991 by the Commissioner, Slum & J.J. Wing of the DDA who was of the opinion that suspension having been revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, he shall not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension and that period was not to betreated as spent on duty for any purpose. This order was however, made subject to review in terms of sub-rule (6) of FR 54B after conclusion of the proceedings and further orders were to be made according to the provisions of sub-rules (3) or (5) of FR 54 B as the case may be. The petitioner was however, given a further right of representation to the Commissioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed a representation against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner on March 5, 1991 which was followed by a number of reminders in this regard. He also sent a representation to the Joint Secretary(Finance), Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development, but his grievance was not redressed and he was informed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India by his letter dated August 2, 1991(page 45 of the paper book) that his representation has been forwarded to the concerned who will take suitable action and inform him of the same. Thereafter the petitioner again made several representations but without any effect. In the mean time the Slum Wing of the DDA was transferred to the MCD, respondent No.4 with effect from September 18, 1992. Since the petitioner failed to receive the relief from the respondents, he filed the instant writ petition on January 27, 1993 in which rule was granted on January 29, 1993. To the writ petition the respondent-MCD filed a counter affidavit, wherein a stand has been taken that the questions relating to the grant of pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period during which he remained under suspension i.e. from September 1, 1984 to July 24, 1989 and the treatment of the period as on duty under FR 54B are premature as these matters can be finally determined on conclusion of the departmental proceedings which are pending against him. From the counter affidavit it also appears that the representation of the petitioner against the letter dated February 26, 1991 was considered by the Commissioners. & J.J. Wing), Delhi Development Authority and the same was rejected by his order dated August 14, 1991 on the ground that according to sub-rule (3) of FR 54B, full pay and allowances for the period of suspension can be paid only when the suspension was considered wholly unjustified. The order further stated that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked with a clear stipulation that the revocation of suspension was without prejudice to the departmental proceedings contemplated against him for which he was placed under suspension. He was also of the opinion that the petitioner can not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn by him during the period of suspension from September 1, 1984 to July 24, 1989 and that the period was not be treated as spent on duty for any purpose. It was also clarified that this order was provisional being subject to review in terms of sub-rule 6 of FR 54B after conclusion of the departmental proceedings, when final order will be made according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or (5) of FR 54B as the case may be.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it will be convenient to set out Fundamental Rule 54B in so far as it is relevant to the case in hand:-