EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. M SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 21.2.2002, made in P.S.A.No.75 of 2001, on the file of the second respondent, as confirmed by the order, dated 2.9.2002, made in A.P.S.A.No.3 of 2002, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the orders passed by the first and the second respondents, ordering a sum of Rs.23,858/- to be paid to the first respondent, as subsistence allowance, is valid in law. It was further submitted that the last drawn salary of the first respondent at the time of his suspension was, admittedly, Rs.1,700/- per month and not Rs.1,300/-, as claimed by the petitioner. THErefore, there is no error committed by the second and third respondents in awarding the said amount to the first respondent, since it was not in dispute that the first respondent had been under suspension till the date of the order. THE first respondent need not be driven back to the second respondent for filing a fresh application for claiming the remaining amount for the period he was under suspension beyond 21.4.2001.