Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Union of India and the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Varangaon, challenged the judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, at Mumbai in Original Application No.787 of 2003. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to pay salary to the deceased respondent, Deepak Arjun Malwadkar, for the period of his suspension, after deducting the suspension allowance, if any. The respondent was a government servant employed at the Ordnance Factory. He was placed under suspension and subsequently reinstated. During the suspension period, he was paid suspension allowance as per the rules. After reinstatement, he claimed full salary for the suspension period, which was denied by the department. The respondent then approached the Tribunal, which allowed his application and directed the petitioners to pay the full salary for the suspension period after deducting the suspension allowance already paid. The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court examined the relevant provisions, particularly Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which governs the payment of subsistence allowance during suspension. The court noted that under the rules, an employee under suspension is entitled only to subsistence allowance, not full salary. The principle of 'no work no pay' applies, as the employee did not perform any work during the suspension period. The court held that the Tribunal had erred in ordering payment of full salary, as it was contrary to the statutory rules. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and dismissed the original application filed by the respondent. The court also noted that the respondent had since passed away and his legal representative was on record.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Salary during suspension - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 10 - The respondent, a government servant, was placed under suspension and subsequently reinstated. He claimed full salary for the suspension period. The Tribunal ordered payment of full salary after deducting suspension allowance. The High Court held that under Rule 10, an employee under suspension is entitled only to subsistence allowance, not full salary. The principle of 'no work no pay' applies. The order of the Tribunal was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Tribunal's jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering payment of full salary contrary to the statutory rules. The High Court held that the Tribunal cannot ignore the clear provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee under suspension is entitled to full salary for the suspension period after being reinstated, when he has already been paid suspension allowance.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 09.03.2005, and dismissed the Original Application No.787 of 2003 filed by the deceased respondent.
Law Points
- Suspension allowance
- subsistence allowance
- no work no pay
- suspension period
- Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1965
- Rule 10
- fundamental right to life
- Article 21
- right to livelihood
