P.L. SHAH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 18-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
P.L. SHAH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
JANUARY 18, 1989 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 21(2)-
Subsistence allowance-Reduction of-Application seeking restoration 
moved after five years-Maintainability of-Period of limitation-
Computation of-Held, cause of action arises every month in which 
reduced subsistence allowance is paid. 
+ 
Civil Services: Suspension order-Nature and purpose of- ·j 
Subsistence allowance-Sufficiency of-Need to review from time to 
time. 
Sub-section (2) of s. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 
empowers the Tribunal not to entertain an application the grievance in 
respect of which had arisen beyond three years immediately preceding 
the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal 
became exercisable under the Act. 
E 
The appellant, an Upper Division Clerk, was suspended from 
service, in July 1975 pending on account of the institution of criminal 
l 
proceedings against him. By an order dated August 4, 1975 he was 
,..
sanctioned subsistence allowance at the rate of 50 per cent of his salary 
last drawn. By a further order dated May 6, 1982 the subsistence allo- . 
wance was reduced to 25 per cent of the salary he was drawing on the ·t I 
F 
date of suspension. He moved a petition before the Tribunal in the year "'· ·-
1988 for a direction to the Government to restore the original order of 
August 4, 1975. That petition was dismissed by the Tribunal solely on 
the ground that the order reducing the allowance having been passed on 
May 6, 1982, it could not entertain the application made more than five 
years thereafter, apparently on the ground of limitation set out in s. 
G 21(2) of the Act. 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant 
.,_ 
that the Government had failed to review the order of May 6, 1982 even 
though a long period of five years had elapsed after the reduction of the 
subsistence allowance, that the delay in conclusion of the criminal pro-
H ceedings, as a consequence of which he had been kept under suspension, 
224 
I : ! 
I 
225 
·---- ' - ---~---.--'' --
was not, due to him and in the circumstances it was not Just and 
appropriate that he should be paid a subsistence allowance at a reduced 
rate for an unreasonably long period. 
' 
Allowing the appeal, 
A 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal was not right in rejecting the applica-
B 
lion. [229F] 
/ r 
2. The ca11se of action in respect of a prayer seeking enhancement 
of subsistence allowance arises every month in which the said allowance 
at the reduced rate is paid. Therefore, in the instant case, though no · 
relief could be given to the appellant in respect of the period which was 
beyond three years from the date on which the Tribunal commenced to 
exercise its powers under the Act, it was quite open to the Tribunal to 
consider whether it was proper for the Government to continue to give 
effect to the order dated !\lay 6, 1982 from any subsequent date, and if 
the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said order was required to 
be revised it could pass an appropriate order notwithstanding the· fact 
that a period of five years had elapsed from the date on which the order 
reducing the subsistence allowance was passed. While doing so it was 
open to the Tribunal to fix a date within the period of the said 
three years from which the appellant should be paid subsistence 
allowance at the revised rate having due regard to the date of the 
application. [229C-E] 
3.1. The very nomenclature of the allowance makes it clear that 
the amount paid to a Government servant under suspension should be 
sufficient for bare subsistence in this world in which the prices of the 
necessaries of life are increasing every day on account of the conditions 
of inflation obtaining in the country. More so, when a Government 
servant cannot engage himself in any other activity during the period of 
suspension. The amount of subsistence allowance payable to the Gov-
ernment servant concerned should, therefore, be reviewed _from time to 
time where the proceedings drag on for a Jong time, even though there 
m~y be no express rule insisting on such review. [228F-G I 
' 
, // 
3.2. In doing so, the authority concerned no doubt has to take 
,..._ 
into account ll'hether the Government servant is in any way responsible 
for the nndue delay in the disposal of the proceedings initiated against 
him. IC the Government servan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.