RSA No.718 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.718 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.02.2009 State of Haryana & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Smt.Snehlata ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Madan Gupta, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CM No.2011-C of 2009 This application under section 5 of the Limitation has been moved for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. The reasons stated in the application make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the civil misc. is allowed. Delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.718 2009 (O&M) 2 RSA No.718 of 2009 The appellant has challenged the judgments and decree passed by the learned courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent represented through L.Rs for grant of subsistence allowance stands decreed. Late Surender Kumar filed a suit on the pleadings that he was placed under suspension on 13.7.1996 vide order No.6199-6202 on account of his arrest in FIR No.274 of 1996 under section 61-1-14 of Excise Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Narnaul. The plaintiff was dismissed from service on 7.8.1996. However, order of dismissal was set aside by the civil court and the judgment and decree of the civil court attained finality. After passing of the decree the plaintiff was again placed under suspension and after holding departmental inquiry was ordered to be dismissed. In spite of the judgment and decree of the civil court having been passed in favour of the plaintiff he was not paid subsistence allowance from 13.7.1996 to 24.10.1999. The only defence taken to the suit was that the matter regarding dismissal of late Surender Kumar was the subject-matter of challenge in CWP No.6660 of 2001 and thus, was subjudice. It was also the defence of the appellants that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable as the plea of the plaintiff/respondent for subsistence allowance was not accepted by this Court. RSA No.718 2009 (O&M) 3 Learned courts below did not agree with the stand taken by the defendant/appellants as this court had permitted the plaintiff/respondent to seek subsistence allowance by filing the matter in appropriate forum. It was on account of the order passed by this court that the plaintiff/respondent had chosen to file the civil suit. Suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, thus, stands decreed. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana raised the following substantial question of laws in this appeal: “ Whether in view of the pendency of Civil Writ Petition in this court against the order of dismissal, the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was competent? In support of the substantial question of law learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana contends that till the decision by this court qua the disciplinary action taken the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was not competent. However, there is no force in this contention. The plaintiff/respondent was entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension and mere pendency of litigation in this court qua disciplinary action could not be a ground to deny the payment of subsistence allowance to the plaintiff/respondent to which he would have been entitled even in case he fails in the writ petition. Consequently, the suit was competent as this court while disposing of an application moved by the plaintiff seeking payment of subsistence allowance had permitted him to avail his alternative remedy in RSA No.718 2009 (O&M) 4 accordance with law. The substantial question of law, thus, is answered against the appellants/State. Consequently, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed. 12.2.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) Skaushik/rp Judge