HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12851 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the 2nd respondent Society in the year 1997. However, he was placed under suspension on 26-11-2001 on certain allegations. Domestic enquiry was conducted and taking into account, the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the society passed a resolution, dated 26-06-2007, directing reinstatement of the petitioner. His grievance is that though he was reinstated into service on being exonerated of the charges, he has not been paid the subsistence allowance for the period during which he was under suspension. 2. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the suspension of the petitioner was on the basis of instructions issued by the District Co-operative Officer under Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’), in view of the observations made in the report submitted after enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 26-06-2007. The resolution, through which the reinstatement was directed, appears to have noy made reference to the question pertaining to payment of subsistence allowance. However, across the Bar, it is stated on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has drawn huge sums towards his salary in excess of his entitlement. Whenever an employee is placed under suspension, he is entitled to be paid subsistence allowance. A decision as regards the balance of the amount needs to be taken, depending on the outcome of the enquiry. The question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to be paid any amount towards the subsistence allowance and whether the 2nd respondent had any justification to withhold that amount can be appraised only after the 2nd respondent makes its stand clear. Even now, the 2nd respondent can be required to pass a written order as to the entitlement of the petitioner to be paid the subsistence allowance and difference of salary. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 08-04-2011, submitted by the petitioner pertaining to his entitlement to be paid subsistence allowance and the difference of salary, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 10, 2011. KTL