Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16784 of 2018 Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Nath Srivastava,Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samir Sharma
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
The only controversy which is arising in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent No.3 is entitle to 75% subsistence allowance in place of 50% during the period of his suspension.
The U.P. State Services Tribunal by the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 has held that with the setting aside of the dismissal order, the respondent No.3 is entitle to the same position and emoluments as he was getting before passing of the order of dismissal i.e. 75% of the salary as subsistence allowance.
Admittedly, the respondent No.3 was suspended vide order dated 31.03.2009 and a disciplinary enquiry was instituted against him. On the basis of the enquiry so conducted, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 23.12.2010. However, before his dismissal as the enquiry was delayed, the petitioners themselves vide order dated 07.09.2009 have increased the subsistence allowance payable to the respondent No.3 to 75% and as such on the date of dismissal he was getting 75% as subsistence allowance.
The order of dismissal was set aside by an order dated 06.05.2016 of the Tribunal and a fresh enquiry was directed to be conducted treating the petitioners to be under suspension.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Tribunal by the impugned order has rightly held that as on date of dismissal, the petitioners was getting 75% of the subsistence allowance, he will continue to get the same during his suspension period till the culmination of the aforesaid departmental enquiry.
We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and in passing the impugned order.
The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed with the directions to the petitioners to pay all arrears of subsistence allowance to the respondent No.3 within a period of one month from today.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 piyush