UNION OF INDIA Vs. P. NARASIMHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench was to the order No. 7408/P&A/BG dated 08.08.2011, whereby the representation dated 26.7.2011 of the first respondent (applicant therein) for grant of subsistence allowance, regular increment, HRA and transport allowance, was rejected by the appellants herein. The first respondent preferred the original application seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) THE Tribunal, having examined the case from all angles, came to the conclusion that the first respondent was entitled to subsistence allowance at the enhanced rate of 75% with effect from 01.11.2009 after completion of three months from the date of suspension, i.e., 29.7.2009. On the issue of Family Planning Allowance (FPA), the Tribunal held that the first respondent was not entitled for the same. In case of transport allowance and HRA, it was held that the first respondent was not entitled. Further, it was held that the first respondent was entitled to regular annual increment in the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 and also 75% subsistence allowance on the said revised amount with effect from 01.11.2009. The appellants were further directed to pay arrears of the allowances with interest at 9% per annum.

(3.) MR .S.Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, Union of India, would contend that the first respondent is not entitled to regular annual increment during suspension period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Jaswant Singh Kanwar [ : 2013 (9) Scale 671]. To this contention, even the learned counsel for the first respondent has no serious objection as the law is well settled that an employee is entitled to increment only when he works for full year and drawing full salary.