RAJ KUMAR PANDITA Vs. S S WAZIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was removed from service by an order of Commandant, JKAP XII Bn. dated: 16.11.1992. He filed a writ petition challenging the order of his removal from service. The matter was considered by this Court. He filed an application for staying of the said order. The Court considered the matter on 31.7.1993 and passed the following order: -

(2.) THIS order according to the petitioner has not been complied with and he has filed this Contempt Petition against the respondents. Notice was issued and Mr. A. Kapoor AAG has appeared for respondents. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have taken a plea that the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered payment of subsistence allowance under rules to the petitioner, and there was no rule which entitles an official who is removed from service, to subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance is allowed only in case of officials who are under suspension, and Rule 108 of J&K Civil Service Regulations deals with payment of subsistence allowance. My attention has further been drawn to Rule 107 of the Civil Service Regulations, which is reproduced as under: -

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner in this case as reported in AIR 1983 SC page 803 takes care of entirely a different sphere, and the cases were officials have been removed from service are not at a11 covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in that case was dealing with Bombay Civil Service Rules 1959, and they were also dealing with a case in which an official had been convicted by a Criminal Court and his appeal was, pending. The aggrieved persons in cases before the Supreme Court were admittedly under suspension, and there was a Rule in Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, where the subsistence allowance was reduced to a mere Rs.1/ - per Month if a person was convicted by a Criminal Court, and the Supreme Court held that the particular rule i.e. Sub Rule (1) (ii) (b) of Rule 151 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, is void as it offended Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The proviso provides for payment of subsistence allowance @ Rs.l/ - to a Government servant, who is convicted by a Competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment and whose appeal against the conviction and sentence is pending. Since the aggrieved persons before the Supreme Court were, admittedly, under suspension who had been convicted by a Criminal Court and their appeals were pending, the Supreme Court held the above mentioned rule as void and ordered the payment of subsistence allowance. This court has ordered payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with Rules. I agree with learned counsel for the respondents that there is no Rule in J&K Civil Service Regulations which entitles a dismissed or removed official to such an allowance. Therefore, I do not find that any Contempt has been committed by the respondents of the orders of this Court.