SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 25th February, 2008, as contained in letter No. 340 issued under the signature of respondent No. 4 and the petitioner has further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release arrears of subsistence allowance with effect from 18.12.2007 till to date along with interest. Further, I.A. No. 1209 of 2011 was filed on 18.04.2011 by the petitioner in which petitioner prays for amendment in the prayer portion of the main writ application which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2012, wherein, petitioner prays for quashing the notification dated 10.02.2011 as contained in Memo No. 244 (Annexure-10 to the I.A.) passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed with retrospective effect from 31.07.2007 i.e., the conviction in R.C.- 43 (A)/96 (Annexure-9 to the rejoinder).

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner while being posted as Veterinary Officer was put under suspension vide order dated 12.02.1999 as contained in memo number 144 passed on the ground of his alleged involvement in a case being RC 50 (A)/96 with a direction for payment of subsistence allowance in pursuance to Rule 96 of the Service Code. From the date of suspension, the petitioner has been paid subsistence allowance till 17.12.2007 but thereafter the same has been withheld. Being aggrieved by non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner has made representation before the respondent authorities as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application but the representation submitted by the petitioner failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities.

(3.) Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged before the Court that the impugned order (Annexure-5) is not legally permissible in the eyes of law as it is against the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Another Vs. Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) through L.Rs, 2014 AIR(SC) 1264. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no concept of deemed dismissal in the service jurisprudence since the petitioner even though under suspension continued till 10.02.2011 as per the impugned notification (Annexure-10 to I.A. No. 1209 of 2011), the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance till the impugned order was issued.