LexUNION OF INDIA versus R.K. CHOPRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 2 S.C.R. 220 UNION OF INDIA v. R.K. CHOPRA (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1096 OF 2010) FEBRUARY 01, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Service law: Central Civil Services (Revision pay) Rules, 1997 - Rule 7, Note 3 - Subsistence allowance, revision of C - Entitlement of suspended government servant When revision of pay scale taking effect from a date prior to suspension - Held: Govt. servant is permitted to exercise option under FR23 even if the period during which he is to 0 exercise the option falls within the period of suspension and then he would be entitled to the benefit of increase in pay and also in subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. When revision of pay scale taking effect from a date falling within the period of suspension - Held: Not entitled - E Benefit of option for revised pay scale would accrue to him in respect of period of suspension only after his reinstatement depending on the fact whether the period of suspension was treated as on duty or not - Fundamental Rules - Rules 23, 53 - Memorandum no.F.2(36)-Ests.1111158 dated 27.8.1958 - F Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309, proviso. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether a government servant is entitled to revision of subsistence allowance based on the G pay revision effected by the Central Civil Services (Revision pay) Rules, 1997 which came into force on 1st January, 1996 while he was under suspension from service. H 220 UNION OF INDIA v. R.K. CHOPRA 221 Allowing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1.1. The claim for payment of subsistence allowance of a Government servant is dealt within Chapter VIII of Fundamental Rules. Rule 53 provides that the Government servant under suspension shall be 9 entitled to subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which he would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance if admissible on the basis of such leave salary. The proviso to Rule 53 (1 )(ii)(a) says c that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the authority is competent to vary the amount subject to some restrictions. [Paras 14 and 15]_ (230-A; 231-E-F] 1.2. Government of India order G.M.O.M. No. F-2(36)- D Ests/-111/58 dated 27th August, 1958 given in the Swamy's compilation of Fundamental and supplementary Rules, deals with the rnvision of scale of pay while a Government Servant is under suspension. The two categories of cases are dealt with in that Office E Memorandum. One refers to cases in which the revised scale of pay takes e:ffect from a_ date prior to ·the date of suspension and othE~r cases in which the revised scales of pay takes effect fmm a date falling within the period of suspension. The Fundamental Rules as well as the Memorandum dated 27th August, 1958 makes it clear that if there is a revision of pay scale in respect of a post held by a Government Servant, prior to the suspension period, he is permitted to exercise option under FR 23, even if F the period during which he is to exercise the option falls G within the period of suspension and then, he will be entitled to the benefit of increase in pay and also in subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, as a result of such option. But if the revised pay scale takes effect from a date falling within the period of suspension H 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A then, the benefit of option, for revised pay scale will accrue to him in respect of the period of suspension only after his reinstatement depending on the fact whether the period of suspension is treated as duty or not. In the present case, the Revised Pay Rules, came into force. on s 1st day of January, 1996 when the respondent was under suspension. Therefore, even if he had exercised his option under FR 23 for the benefit of the pay revision, the same would have accrued to him only after his reinstatement depending on the fact whether the period c of suspension is treated as 'on duty' or not. Respondent was dismissed from service on 4.8.2005, therefore the question of the benefit of the revised pay and the subsistence allowance thereon on the basis of Revised Pay Rules did not accrue to him. [Paras 16 and 17] [231- D G-H; 232-A; 233-D-H; 234-A] 1.3. The Revised pay Rules, which came into force on 01.01.1996 are in conformity with the FR 53 and the Office Memo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.