Subsistence allowance
jayakumar.j
(Querist) 23 October 2018
This query is : Resolved
An employee was placed under suspension on 31-1-2007. He attained the age of superannuation on 30-04-2007. He was paid retirement benefits on 31-08-2018..He was paid subsistence allowance upto 30-04-2007only. Is he eligible for subsistence allowance till 31-08-2018.He was employee of Cooperative Bank.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 23 October 2018
During the suspension period the employee was retired from service. Hence no sussistence allowance will be paid from 01-05-2007. but you have not disclosed whether any charges framed against him or not? for which reasons he was suspended?
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 24 October 2018
In case any disciplinary action pending and the employee not responsible for the delay in disposal, he can claim subsistence allowance till the revocation of suspension order.Consut lawyer dealing with service matters with the records in hand..
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 24 October 2018
The delinquent officer is entitled for subsistence allowance till suspension is revoked.
Consult a local prudent lawyer practicing service matters.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 24 October 2018
The employee is eligible for subsistence allowance upto 31/08/2018. W.P.13714 of 2011 D/2-8-2011.An award by the Controllinjg Authority dated 19-08-2016 which is in Tamil is translated and furnished herein.Proceedings of the controlling Authority for the sanction of Subsistence Allowance and Assistant commissioner of Labour Thiruchirapalli
Thiru.S.Munian M.Sc., M.Phil., B.L.,
Assistant Commissioner
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchrapalli-20
P.S.A No.08/2016 dated 19-08-2016
Thiru.A.V.Ramachandran
Thanajvur Petitioner
Vs
Management
T.1326 Thiruvaiyaru primary Cooperative Agricultural b Bank
Thiruvaiyaru Respondent
Revised Order:
Read: Proceedings PSA 08/2016 dated 11-03-2016 of this Forum
Thiru .A.V. Ramachandran has preferred a petition for the sanction of Subsistence Allowance from the Management of T.1326 Thiruvaiyaru primary Cooperative Agricultural b Bank
Thiruvaiyaru under the payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1981.
In his petition the petitioner has stated that he was working under the control of the respondent Management from 01-04-2004 to 31-03-2004 and was suspended from 01-04-22204 to 31-03-2004 framing charges against him. He has further stated that he was paid subsistence allowance for one month from 01-04-2014 to 30-04-2014. Thereafter he was not permitted to retirement on 30-04-2014 and continued the disciplinary action and criminal case. Finally he was relieved on 12-12-2013 and granted retirement benefits.In the circumstances, he requested subsistence allowance stating that he was not employed anywhere during this period.His application was numbered as P.S.A. 7/2012.He has further stated that as the Management assured to consider the same at the time of sanction of the retirement benefits. But the management did not consider the same at the time of sanction of retirement benefits on 12-12-2013, and therefore,he has requested for the sanction of rRs.16,48,260/-
As subsistence allowance for the period from 01-04-2014 to 12-12-2013.
An award was passed by this forum for the payment of Rs.13,85,550/- to the petitioner within 30 days. The Mangement has prefereed a re-open petition to re-enquire the award and to set aside the same.
In its re- petition the respondent has stated that the petitioner has attained the age of retirement and therefore, he is not entitled for the subsistence allowance .The petition filed before this forum in PSA IA 7/2012 was dismissed as it was not pressed. As such the Management pleaded objection petition in PSA IA 2/2015 and to set aside the Ex-party order, since the respondent will be put into irrepairabel loss.
The petitioner in the original petition PSA IA 7/2012 has stated that he did not press for the same as the Management promised to consider the request at the time of retirement benefits. It has further been stated that the Subsistence Allowance should be sanctioned in accordance with the Subistence Act 1981 and neither the bylaw nor anyother act can supercede the act. The Management has filed an attested copy of the documents by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Thanjavur and duly notarized in PSA IA 2/2015. Further has submitted that the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1919 Babiadevi Vs Pemanand Pd. has dismissed the Special Leave Petition stating that failure to appear after receiving the summons is willful default and therefore to dismiss the re-open petition. This is squarely applicable to this case also.
The question to be decided in this case is
1.the petition is liable for dismissal as prayed by the Management ?
2.If not what is the amount payable to the petitioner in the main petition.
Answer to the 1st question.
The argument put forth by the Management is not acceptable. Therefore, the amount payable to the petitioner is quantified as stated below.
The salary received by the petitioner was Rs.11984/- and the same is accepted since the respondent has not refused it.
1 for the first 90 days 50% From 01-05-2004 to 31-07-2004 11984x50x90 = Rs. 20742 26x100
2.Next 90 days 75% From 01-08-2004 to 31-10-2004 11984x75x90 =Rs.31112
26x100
3. Thereafter 100% 01-11-2004 to 12-12-2013 (3326 days) 11984x3326 = Rs.1533030
26
TOTAL Rs.1584884/-
Therefore, the respondent Management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,84,884/ as Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner within 30 days from the receipt of order.
Issued under my signature and seal on 19 th day of August 2016
Sd/ Controlling Authority.
To
1.Thiru.A.V.Ramachandran
S/o Venkatraaman
No.479,Agraharam, Ndukkaveri Post
Thiruvaiyaru Taluk
Thanjavur District
2.The Management/ President
T.1326 Thiruvaiyaru primary Cooperative Agricultural b Bank
Thiruvaiyaru
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2018
@ Isaac Gabriel,
When you have stated that the the employee was retired on the date of superannuation (30.04.2007), on what ground you feel the subsistence allowance to be permissible beyond the date of retirement, particularly when retired on superannuation?
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 25 October 2018
Dear Sudhirji, It is non-pensionable service.
Dear Dingraji, Answer to your doubt is available in WP 13714/2011 dated 02-08-2011 Madras HIgh court. In this particular case the employee had to face criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, I pleaded that the employee, though superannuated had to remain unemployed due to preoccupation to attend court cases, the disciplinary proceedings which was remained undisposed expecting the verdict in criminal case.
Guest
(Expert) 25 October 2018
Dear Isaac Gabriel,
I may have to differ with your views. If you re-read your own translated judgment, in 2nd and 4th para from the introductory line of the revised order, you can very well find the basic difference between the judgment case and the case discussed by the querist. Moreover, ex-parte judgments can neither become the precedents, nor can replace the actual provisions of law.
Unaccomplished disciplinary case on the date of retirement does not make any difference in a retirement case..
