1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.3462 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 M.Sirajudeen .. Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate Building, Tiruchirapalli-620 001. .. Respondent This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.A7-1789/2010(1), dated 17.02.2011 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner at the rate of 75% from the month of September, 2010 onwards. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, GA ORDER The petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector of Survey in the National Highways, Trichy. He was placed under suspension by an order, dated 12.3.2010 in view of the criminal investigation pending against him and under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2.The petitioner has sent a representation stating that he should be given enhanced subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% . By the impugned order it was informed that he will not be given 75% as he himself was responsible for suspension. 3.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, dated 26.4.2011, it was stated that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.5936 of 2010 to consider his representation. This court gave a direction to consider his representation. Pursuant to the same, it was considered and rejected. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows: ”7.It is submitted that, under rule 53(i)(b)(i) of fundamental rules, it has been specifically mentioned that the amount of subsistence allowance may be enhanced by suitable amount of not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first six months if in the opinion of the said authority the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the Government servant. It is submitted that the petitioner himself was responsible for the order of suspension as he was getting bribe from the party for doing his normal Government duties which was entrusted to him. Thus the petitioner is directly involved for his suspension. The petitioner has committed criminal offences. So many formalities have to be observed to frame charges to the petitioner by the Vigilance of anti-corruption department. It will take time the Petitioner can get full salary for the period of suspension if he would be proved not involving for getting bribe from the party. So the petitioner should wait till for getting judgment from the court on his favour.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The enhancement of subsistence allowance cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the light of the above, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR(CO) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR vvk To The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Collectorate Building, Tiruchirapalli-620 001. 1cc to The Special Government Pleader SR No.40385/11 SB:29/11/2011 2p 3c W.P.(MD)NO.3462 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/