RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was placed under suspension as departmental enquiry was contemplated against him. Subsequently, on those very allegations, a criminal case was instituted against him which is still pending. As per rules, after the expiry of six months of the period of suspension, the petitioner is getting 75% of the salary as subsistence allowance. His claim in this petition is that the amount of annual increment should also be taken into consideration as no order of withholding or stopping of increment has been passed by the competent Authority.

(2.) On notice of motion, written statement has been filed accepting the facts as stated above. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the absence of any order passed by the competent Authority, stopping or withholding of increments, even if the petitioner is under suspension, he has earned the same and subsistence allowance is accordingly to be paid to the petitioner. We so direct. These directions be complied within three months from the communication of this order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there was another employee similarly situated, but he has been reinstated and petitioner's case is being discriminated as he is under suspension since January 19, 1988. This contention cannot be accepted. It is for the authorities to take into consideration the question of reinstatement. If for any reason criminal case is not being concluded, we leave it to the Authorities to keep in view this aspect of the matter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. There is no order as to costs.