VIDHYA BOHARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is taken up for final hearing on merits with the consent of counsel for both sides for instant disposal because of the Constitutional compulsion.

(2.) THE petitioner is the wife -surprisingly pressing by proxy the grievance of her husband, non -petitioner No.?, a Government servant under suspension, unable to feed his family for nor -payment to him by the State, the statutory "subsistence allowance" due to him. We do not deny her standing to challenge the action of State (non -petitioners No. 1 and 2) as the question is of a family being destituted. More about it later but the admitted facts of the case to be noticed first is that husband was suspended twice, on 3 5 -1919 and 22 -10 -1983, and he is paid nothing because he did not join at Sagar where he was posted at the time of his second suspension. On these admitted facts, mentioned in the return and also orally pressed forcefully for our consideration by Deputy Government Advocate Shri Roman, we propose to base our decision in this case.

(3.) IT is the question of livelihood and the question of a family being destituted, family of a person who is in service of the State. In such a case, burden lay on the State to satisfy the Court that procedure adopted by it in taking any action, by which its employee was being deprived of his livelihood was a reasonable procedure. It is held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar AIR 1983 SC 109 that right to life granted under Article 21 also guarantees right to livelihood to a person. In any case, we are of the view that the State is bound to Directive Principles of Article 39 -A and 42 and 43 of the Constitution. In infringement of Article 21 in the particular facts and circumstances of the case can be, and has to be tested in reference thereto. Indeed, another question also arises in this case, if Articles 16 and 33 were also violated by the State. Plea taken by the State obviously precludes it from answering these questions, which have indeed, to be decided in favour of the petitioner because of what is stated in several decisions of the Apex Court. Reference, in this connection, may be made to the decisions in Shila Borse v. State of Maharastra AIR 1983 SC 378, Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 624, State of Maharastra v, Chandra Kant AIR 1983 SC 803 and Bandhwa Mukti Morcha AIR 1983 SC 802.