SATISH RATHEE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Assistant Food and Supplies Officer was placed under suspension vide order dated January 29, 1986. He was reinstated vide order dated October 18, 1991. The order of reinstatement was without prejudice to the final action that may be taken against him. Vide order dated December 17, 1997, it was directed that an amount of Rs. 1,23,052.80 shall be recovered from the petitioner on account of the loss caused by him. It was further directed that his pay will be reduced to the minimum stage of the time scale of pay for a period of three years. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner represented for the regularisation of the period of his suspension. This matter has been decided vide order dated June 11, 1998. It has been held that since the petitioner has not been exonerated of the charge levelled against him, he will not be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance that was actually reimbursed to him. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.8 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. CM. Chopra, counsel for the petitioner has contended that he was entitled to the enhancement of the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% at the expiry of six months from the date of the order of suspension viz January 29. 1986. It has been further submitted that the petitioner should have been granted all the increments. Lastly, it has been contended that vide order dated June 9 1998, the operation of the order dated December 17, 1997 has been stayed by the appellate authority. Thus, the Department has acted illegally in restricting the payment to the subsistence allowance only for the period of suspension.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended on January 29, 1986. If he was not paid subsistence allowance at a higher rate, the cause of action had accrued to him in July, 1986. It has not been shown that the petitioner had raised even his little finger at the appropriate time so as to claim the subsistence allowance at a higher rate. The claim is sought to be made after a lapse of more than 12 years. At this stage, if the petitioner were to file a civil suit, a plea of limitation shall be available to the respondents. At the lowest, a triable issue of limitation would arise.