Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
K. Kaliappan
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer & Others
W.P (MD). No. 9930 of 2010 & M.P (MD). Nos. 1 to 3 of 2010
Decided On : 24-01-2013
Suspension - Reinstatement into Service - Subsistence Allowance
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of suspension and sought reinstatement into service. The suspension order was subsequently revoked, and the petitioner is now working as Village Assistant. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as the suspension order had been revoked, and the petitioner was already reinstated into service. The court also directed the petitioner to make a representation for the payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.
Issues: Challenge to suspension order, reinstatement into service, payment of subsistence allowance
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the petition infructuous as the suspension order had been revoked and the petitioner was reinstated. The court directed the petitioner to make a representation for the payment of subsistence allowance.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs were awarded.
1. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension dated 26.04.2010 passed by the second respondent and consequently, seeking for reinstatement into service.
2. Now, it is represented by both sides that the said order of suspension was subsequently revoked by the proceeding dated 09.10.2010 issued by the second respondent and the petitioner is also now working as Village Assistant. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that for the period of suspension, the petitioner was not given subsistence allowance. Therefore, the same may be directed to be paid to the petitioner. If no subsistence allowance was paid for those periods, it is for the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities concerned seeking for payment of subsistence allowance and as and when any such representation is made, it is only for the authorities to consider and pass orders on the same.
4. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
