OM PRABHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of non-payment of the subsistence allowance after her suspension, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction for payment of the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

(2.) Brief resume of the facts is that while working as Taxation Inspector in the office of respondent No. 3, the petitioner claims to have proceed on leave in the month of April 2006 and thereafter applied for sanction of leave. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 11.6.2007, conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 17.12.2007, Annexure P-2. The petitioner made representations for payment of the subsistence allowance, copies of some of the representations are placed on the record as Annexure P-3 and P-4/1. It is alleged that despite representations, no subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner. It is stated that on account of non-payment of the subsistence allowance, the petitioner at the verge of starvation.

(3.) In the reply filed, the respondents admitted the non-payment of the subsistence allowance. It is admitted case of the respondents that petitioner was placed under suspension for absence from duty w.e.f. 1.4.2006, vide order dated 11.6.2007. It is further stated that whole placing the petitioner under suspension, her Head quarter was fixed at the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST), Bhiwani and she was directed to join/report at the said Head quarter. The petitioner never reported to the Head quarter. Later on, the petitioner was reinstructed vide order dated 20.8.2009 and posted at the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST), Punchklula. it was only on her reinstatement that the petitioner joined on 24.8.2009. It is further stated that petitioner though remained absent from duty w.e.f. 1.4.2006, however, salary, upto August 2006, was deposited in her account No. 10105887192. In respect to the non-payment of the subsistence allowance, it is admitted that no subsistence allowance, whatsoever, has been paid to the petitioner on account of her non-joining at the Head quarter and thus, she is not entitled to any subsistence allowance. The respondents have also stated that the husband of the petitioner-Kapoor Singh Bhankhar, is a gazetted officer, posted as Executive Engineer in the Pollution Board, Haryana.