SUMER CHAND KHAJURIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 88 of 1985 on April 23,1987 held the etitioner entitled to draw the subsistence allowance under rules which goverened the conditions of service during the period of his suspension. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 28 of 1985, another Division Bench directed the payment of subsistence allowance as permissible under rules to be paid to the petitioner. As the respondents failed to comply with the court directions, this petition was filed against the respondents for appropriate directions and initiation of contempt proceedings against them. Objections were filed by the respondents and on April 30, 1980 Mr. A. N. Kotwal, the learned counsel for the respondents, sought time to comply with the court directions within two months. It was, however, submitted that the petitioner was getting the subsistence allowance regularly according to the assessment made by the respondents which was disputed by the petitioner. This court vide its order dated July 16, 1990, prima facie found the respondents being guilty of violating the court directions and issued a formal show cause notice for initiating contempt proceedings in response to which they appeared in the court and filed their objections.

(2.) IN the objections filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is submitted that he remained posted as Chief Engineer. Civil Construction Wing, Power Development Department, Jammu from September, 1986 to July, 1990, and as Head of the Department. It was not his function to pay the salary or subsistence allowance to the employees of the department despite the fact that he exercised over-all supervision on the technical administrative work of the department. He has denied his responsibility for non-payment of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. He, however, submitted that respondent No. 2 under the genuine and bonafide belief that as per Article 108- A (iii) Govt. instruction No. l of the Jandk Civil Services Regulations, found that the petitioner was entitled to the subsistence allowance only for that period for which he remained attached in the office to which he was attached and that under Rule 7 (1) (b) of SRO-370 regarding Jandk Services (Revised Pay) Rules of 1987, the suspended employee is not entitled to the revised pay as he has to exercise his option within 3 months from the date he returns to duty. It is submitted that it was decided in July, 1987 that the rate of subsistence allowance which the petitioner was already drawing be decreased by 10 per cent with effect from April 1, 1987, on account of the fact that he was not co-operating so far as settlement of store accounts were concerned. It is submitted by respondent No. 1 that he has got the greatest regard for the institution of judiciary and for the order of this court.

(3.) IN their reply, respondents 2and3 have stated that the petitioner has been paid subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension i. e. January 9, 1985, upto date on the basis of pay and rates of D. A. and ADA permissible under rules. No increment is payable to the suspended employee during the period of suspension under Rule 78 of CSR (Vol. 1 ). It is submitted that the petitioner has been paid subsistence allowance at the rate of his basic pay he was receiving at the time of his suspension and the benefit of revision of pay was not given to him under SRO. 370 of 1987. It is submitted that delay in the payment of the subsistence allowance has not been intentional but has proceeded from normal and sincere interpretation of rules relating to the attendance of the suspended employee at the place of his attachment after suspension. The petitioner started marking his attendance in the office to which he was attached with effect from August 3, 1990. It is submitted that the order of this court has faithfully been complied with by the respondents with the result that payment in full and upto date has been made to the petitioner as per statement annexed as Annexure B/1. It is stated that respondent No. 2 took over as Executive Engineer, CI andd Div. Jammu on July 25, 1987 and on transfer handed over the charge on May 3, 1990, His predecessor did not make the payment of the subsistence allowance on account of the petitioner's not marking his attendance in the office to which he was attached. The petitioner received payment May 1, 1986 to November 13, 1986 and for the months of December, 1986 and January, 1987, and was not paid for the period he did not mark attendance in the office register. No sooner did the petitioneroner marked his attendance in the office register under the directions of this court payment of subsistence allowance was made to him promptly and regularly. It is submitted that the respondents have got the greatest regard for the court and have never failed to implement the directions issued. However, it is submitted by them that if the court feels that there has been an inadvertent irreverances towards the court, they render their unqualified apology with a prayer for dropping the proceedings against them.