G CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. CHAIRMAN MADRAS PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up before this Court praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner the enhanced subsistence allowance payable to him with effect from 4th December 1986 till date and continue to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance till the order of suspension dated 4th September 1986 is revoked.

(2.) THE petitioner who was appointed as a Traffic Manager of the Madras Trust (the respondent herein) was the Head of the Traffic Department of the Madras Port Trust under the provisions governed by Ss. 24 (1) (a) and 25 (1) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Central Act 38 of 1963 applies to him. While the petitioner was working as a Traffic Manager, the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case in R. C. No. 38 of 1986 under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the petitioner and the respondent Madras Port Trust was informed by proceedings dated 25th June 1986. In accordance with the Proceedings of the Government of India, Ministry of Transport, the petitioner was placed under suspension by Proceedings of the Respondent dated 4th September 1986 which reads as follow :

(3.) THE petitioner alleges in his affidavit that he had been co-operating with the Investigating agency right from the inception of the said proceedings, that though the action against the petitioner had been initiated in the year 1986, it has been kept pending for more than two years, that the prolonging of the period of suspension is not in any manner attributable to the petitioner and that he is entitled to be paid the enhanced subsistence allowance on the expiry of the first three months period from the date of suspension. The petitioner further alleges that he had been paid subsistence allowance from 4th September 1986 equivalent to his half pay together with other allowances which is payable during the first three months period, that the respondent has to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance from 4th December, 1986, that the failure on the part of the respondent to pay the enhanced allowance is irregular and that it is obligatory on the part of the respondent like any other employer to pay enhanced subsistence allowance if the period of suspension prolongs beyond the period of three months for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit and the power vested in the authorities in this regard is a power coupled with duty with corresponding right on the officer concerned to demand and receive the enhanced subsistence allowance and that as such in law he is entitled to the subsistence allowance from December, 1986 which has been wrongfully withheld by the respondent. The petitioner further alleges that he made a representation in this regard but has not been answered by the respondent and hence he is compelled to file this writ petition. The petitioner further alleges that the subsistence allowance that is being paid presently is a meagre amount and that he has been continued to be kept under suspension for quite a long period for no fault of his.