ANEES AHMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 22174/ -has been deposited by the respondents with the Registry on account of subsistence allowance to be paid to the petitioner. This fact is borne out by the report of the office. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this amount be paid to the petitioner

(2.) IT may also be mentioned that in fact vide order dt. 5 -3 -1991, the court had ordered that amount of subsistence deposited in the Registry be disbursed to the claiment under the orders of the court.

(3.) MR Pant learned counsel for the respondents objected to this, that the petitioner has not been attending the office during the period of his suspension, so he is not entitled for the subsistence allowance. I find no merit in the objection of the respondents. The petitioner will continue to be in service of the respondents, but during hi suspension the relationship of master and servant net suspended. Respondents therefore, cannot require the delinquent official to attend the office during the period of suspension If he does not attend the off ice he is not disentitled to receive the subsistence allowance. Consequently I accept the prayer of the petitioner, and direct the Registry to make the payment of the aforementioned sum to the petitioner against a proper receipt and after due identification. It is needless to say that respondents shall continue to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner due to him in accordance with rules.