High Court of Madras Considers Plea for Reinstatement and Payment of Subsistence Allowance Following Suspension of Court Employee. Petitioner Alleges Non-Payment of Allowance for Over Seven Years Despite Compliance with Fundamental Rule 53(2).

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the Tamil Nadu judicial service on 12.12.2012 and later promoted to Record Clerk. While working in various courts, he was arrested on 30.11.2016 in connection with a criminal case registered in Crime No.294 of 2011 (C.C.No.12 of 2013) relating to an accident that occurred on 11.06.2011 when he was a temporary driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. Following his detention exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under suspension on 09.12.2016. Subsistence allowance was paid for seven months from 30.11.2016 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner claimed that he appeared before the fourth respondent on 01.07.2017 and furnished a required certificate under Rule 53(2) of the Fundamental Rules. Despite this, no subsistence allowance was paid from 01.07.2017 onwards for more than seven years. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate him after revocation of the suspension order and to pay 75% of subsistence allowance for the period from 01.07.2017 until reinstatement.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Subsistence Allowance During Suspension - Fundamental Rules, Rule 53(2) - Petitioner, a Record Clerk in the judicial service, was suspended following arrest in a criminal case; after 7 months of suspension, subsistence allowance was stopped despite petitioner furnishing certificate under Rule 53(2); matter pending consideration (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Entitlement to reinstatement after revocation of suspension and payment of 75% subsistence allowance from 01.07.2017 under Fundamental Rule 53(2)

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Fundamental Rule 53(2) - subsistence allowance upon furnishing certificate
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 147

W.P.No.33787 of 2024

2025-02-21

R. Subramanian, G. Arul Murugan

2025:MHC:453

S. Sasikala (for petitioner), S. Arjun Suresh (for respondents)

N.Selvam

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Service dispute over suspension and non-payment of subsistence allowance

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeking writ of mandamus to direct respondents to reinstate him and pay 75% subsistence allowance from 01.07.2017

Filing Reason

Non-payment of subsistence allowance after initial 7 months of suspension despite petitioner furnishing certificate under Rule 53(2) of Fundamental Rules

Issues

Whether petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and payment of 75% subsistence allowance from 01.07.2017 under Fundamental Rule 53(2) after revocation of suspension order

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner contended that subsistence allowance was stopped after 01.07.2017 despite his compliance with Rule 53(2) by furnishing a required certificate.

Judgment Excerpts

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 4th respondents to reinstate the petitioner after the revocation of suspension order and pay the petitioner 75% of subsistence allowances for the period from 01.07.2017 to till date. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when he was suspended on 09.12.2016, he had been paid subsistence allowance only for a period of 7 months from 30.11.2016 to 30.06.2017 and thereafter, the subsistence allowance had not been paid for more than 7 years from 01.07.2017.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution; reserved for orders on 13.02.2025; pronounced on 21.02.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Fundamental Rules: Rule 53(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Madras Considers Plea for Reinstatement and Payment of Subsistence Allowance Following Suspension of Court Employee. Petitioner Alleges Non-Payment of Allowance for Over Seven Years Despite Compliance with Fundamental Rule 53(2).
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Deemed Promotion to Retired Employee Despite Disciplinary Proceedings — Employer Cannot Ignore Exoneration by Enquiry Officer. Stigmatic remarks in disagreement order set aside as promotion cannot be denied when employee is...