V SRINIVASAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR SPECIAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.2352/2001-02/E1 dated 01.10.2001 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the subsistance allowance in accordance with the Rules and by laws and existing practice for the period of suspension commencing from 14.08.1996 (deducting the amount of subsistance allowance paid for the period from 14.08.1996 to 31.08.1996).

(2.) The facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Bank Inspector in the respondents Co-operative Bank in the year 1967; thereafter he was promoted to various posts and in the year 1994, he was promoted as Secretary to the first respondent Co-operative Bank; the petitioner attained the age of superannuation of 58 years on 31.08.1994. But his services were extended beyond 31.08.1994, for a period of one year commencing from 01.09.1994,as per G.O (D) No.655 co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department dated 30.08.1994. The petitioner's services were extended for another period by another order by G.O.No.649, Co-operation dated 30.08.1995 and the extended period was to be over on 31.08.1996. But before the end of the said extended period, the petitioner was suspended by the first respondent as per proceedings in RC.Nil/801 dated 13.08.1996 and the petitioner is still under suspension. The petitioner is entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance at a rate not exceeding 50% of the basic pay during the period of his suspension. On 22.11.1996, the petitioner requested the first respondent for payment of subsistence allowance and also payment of salary for the period from 1.8.1996 to 13.08.1996. On 15.12.1996, the first respondent sent a communication to the petitioner in order to ascertain whether the petitioner is residing in the Headquarters. The petitioner sent his reply stating that he is residing at Headquarters and he is not employed anywhere from 14.8.1996 thereafter number of requests were made for grant of subsistence allowance; on 19.01.1999 that is after 2 years of suspension, the first respondent framed charges against the petitioner stating that the petitioner was privy to the grant of loan to some fictitious institutions. On 08.11.2001, another communication was sent to the respondent by the petitioner. On 14.08.2002, the first respondent Bank appointed the third respondent as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter of the petitioner and in that proceedings the petitioner was referred to as former Secretary and under suspension. Again on 24.09.2002, the petitioner requested the Co-operative Bank for payment of subsistence allowance. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by the respondents but paid subsistence allowance only for 14 days that is from 14.08.1996 to 31.08.1996. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) The first respondent filed his counter stating that the Bank has paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period from14.08.1996 to 31.08.1996 as per the Bank Special Bye-laws; that the petitioner has no right to claim any relief from the respondent Bank, as his services ceased on 31.08.1996 itself. Under any law, his claim to pay subsistence allowance is null and void; the petitioner's claim is not sustainable as there is a separate forum for entertaining this type of claim ie., the Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Authority competent for payment of subsistence allowance. Further, it is stated that the services of the petitioner were extended after his date of superannuation only on the strength of G.O. and the bank is not aware of the reasons on which his services were extended; and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.