The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of pay revision under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, and the Review Committee's decision lacked justification.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner assailing Minutes of the Review Committee meeting dated 30.04.2019 recommending status quo with respect to Subsistence Allowance payable to the Petitioner as well as the Approval dated 24.05.2019 given by the Governing Body of the College to the recommendations of the Review Committee.

2. The neat legal nodus in the present Petition is Entitlement to Subsistence Allowance during Suspension and its consequential nuances. The threefold issues raised by the Petitioner can be encapsulated as follows:-

(a) Enhancement of Subsistence Allowance from 50% to 75% for the suspension period post the initial three months period under FR 53.

(b)Benefit of Pay Revision under 7 th Pay Commission and consequential re-fixation of Subsistence Allowance and enhanced Subsistence Allowance.

(c) Grant of Annual Increments under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 during the suspension period.

3. Brief narrative required for deciding the issues crystallized above is that the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Professor in the English Department of Respondent/College (hereinafter referred to as "College") at the relevant time and was arrested in connection with FIR No. 229/2017 on 11.12.2017 for allegedly forging documents including an order representing it to be judgement of a Court. On account of the arrest, Petitioner was placed under deemed suspension by invoking Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 01.03.2018 w.e.f. 12.12.2017. On being granted Bail on 01.08.2018, Petitioner wrote to the College on 02.08.2018/03.08.2018, seeking reinstatement and increase in Subsistence Allowance.

4. On 21.12.2018, Petitioner approached this Court by filing a Petition, being W.P.(C) 13989/2018, challenging his continued suspension. On 13.04.2019, the College constituted a Two-Member Review Committee which recommended status quo on the Subsistence Allowance of the Petitioner. Based on this, the Application filed by the Petitioner for interim relief was dismissed. This Order was challenged in an Appeal before the Division Bench and during the hearing on admission, the College provided the Minutes of the Review Committee Meeting to the Petitioner, upon which the Appeal was withdrawn, with liberty to challenge the recommendations in appropriate proceedings. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

5. With regard to the increase in the Subsistence Allowance, Learned Counsel for Petitioner contends that the Review Committee has directed status quo on the enhancement of the allowance, based on Rule 2(c) of Suspension under Payment of Subsistence Allowance, CCS Rules or Rule 2(c) of the Instructions under FR 53 whereas, no such Rule 2(c) exists under the CCS Rules and therefore, there is no application of mind. In so far as reliance on Rule 2(c) in the Instructions under FR 53 is concerned, it is argued that the Instructions cannot be invoked to deny benefit available under the substantive provisions of FR 53. It is argued that under FR 53, Subsistence Allowance of the Petitioner should have been increased to 75% after three months of suspension, since the period of suspension was prolonged due to reasons attributable wholly to the Respondent. Reliance is placed on judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Mohd. Laeeq Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,2014 SCConlineRaj 6760 , wherein it has been held that the employer can deny Subsistence Allowance to an employee, only when reasons for prolonged suspension are attributable to the employee. Attention of the Court is drawn to provision FR 53(1)(ii)(a)(i), to argue that it is clearly stipulated in the Rule itself that the rate of Subsistence Allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50% of the allowance admissible during the first three months, if, in the opinion of the Authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the