CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 8.2.2011 Joginder Pal ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has impugned order dated 1.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) by which his prayer for the increase of subsistence allowance has been declined. The petitioner places reliance on Rule 7.2(1) to say that if the period of suspension is not prolonged for the reasons which can be attributed to the delinquent employee then in such an eventuality, the subsistence allowance has to be increased after the period of six months. Rule 7.2(1) is extracted herebelow:- “7.2(1) A Government employee under suspension shall be entitled to the following payments, namely :- (i) in the case of a Warrant Officer in civil employ who is liable to revert to military duty, the pay and allowance to which would have been entitled had he been suspended, while in military employment. (ii) in the case of any other Government employee- (a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the leave salary which the Government employee would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay, and in addition dearness allowance, if admissible. On the basis of such leave salary: provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first six months as follows:- (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, I the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government employee. (ii)the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the peoird of the first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government employee. (iii)The rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased, or as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under Clause (i) and (ii) above; b) any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 3 employee was in receipt of the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances.” Learned counsel for the petitioner while making reference to Annexure P-2 contends that no reasons whatsoever have been given for denial of this benefit to him. Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have filed a reply in which except for reiterating their decision not to grant any further increased benefit of subsistence allowance, no reasons have been given for denial thereof. The Court then asked the respondents to file an affidavit to justify the denial of this benefit to the petitioner. The affidavit was filed on 10.12.2010 which again does not reveal any reason for denial of the benefit to the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid and upon due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Rule 7.2(1) is unambiguous. The competent authority has the power to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of first six months as per the following criteria:- (i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, I the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government employee. (ii)the amount of subsistence allowance may be reduced by suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence CWP No.20093 of 2009 (O&M) 4 allowance admissible during the period of the first six months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government employee. (iii)The rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased, or as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under Clause (i) and (ii) above; b) any other compensatory allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government employee was in receipt of the date of suspension subject to the fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances.” It is thus evident that the competent authority while resorting to taking a decision in this regard must justify its action of increase of the subsistence allowance in the eventuality of its coming to such a conclusion and on the same parity of logic has to give reasons if the benefit is being denied to an employee. The order being silent on this aspect can at best be termed to be arbitrary and therefore deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the benefits which have been claimed by him in the instant petition. Let needful be done within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. February 08 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge