STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed the above Original Petition on two grounds; one that the Tribunal did not give the respondent State enough time to place the entire facts before the Tribunal by filing a counter affidavit. Twenty Eight days from the date of filing the Original Application, it was allowed granting subsistence allowance for a person for about two years, rues the learned Government Pleader. There are also many factors which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal which factors were not placed before the Tribunal by the applicant. It is also submitted, specifically pointing out the facts of the case, the Tribunal's order would create a bad precedent insofar as an employee who was constantly on un-authorised absence is now granted subsistence allowance from 08.01.2016 to 14.12.2018, the period he was kept out of service due to a dismissal, on which later date he rejoined for reason of the dismissal having been set aside, as is seen from Ext.P9.

(2.) After having heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as also the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent and after going through the records produced by the Government in the Original Petition we are convinced that the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the State to file a counter affidavit especially when there is 45 days' time provided under the statute to file a counter affidavit. However, having heard the submissions on both sides, we are of the opinion that the order has to be sustained though the specific grounds raised by either parties does not find a place in the order of the Tribunal. We hence do not think that there is any requirement for a remand of the matter especially since we heard the matter elaborately and are answering the specific legal question posed by the State in challenge of the order to pay subsistence allowance.

(3.) We are called upon to consider the issue of grant of subsistence allowance between 08.01.2016 and 14.12.2018. The applicant was working as Store-in-Charge in the Ground Water Department. For un-authorised absence, he was proceeded against first by Ext.P3 dated 15.10.2011. An order was passed on 18.12.2013, Ext.P4, dismissing him from service. The dismissed employee filed an appeal before the Government. The Government by Ext.P5 interfered with the order and directed fresh disciplinary action against the employee. By Ext.P6 the Director reinstated the employee and also directed him to join within seven days. It is submitted that the employee did not rejoin duty despite reinstatement and a specific direction to join within seven days. However we need not deliberate on that aspect since we are not as of now concerned with that period. Later Ext.P7 order was passed on 08.01.2016 from which the controversy arises.