1. Heard Mr. G. Jeremiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.P. Shamuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 and Mr. R. Bala Ramesh for R2. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner is employed as Secretary in the second respondent Society. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 28.01.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid subsistence allowance so far. Hence, the petitioner made several requests for subsistence allowance to the second respondent and the same was rejected by the second respondent Society. Further, he made a representation dated 05.05.2014 to grant subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

3. The second respondent passed the impugned order, refusing to pay the subsistence allowance on the ground that the petitioner is not covered by the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 and hence, no Subsistence Allowance could be paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition to quash the above said order dated 05.05.2014 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner until disciplinary proceedings is over.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent. Para-7 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

"7. I respectfully submit that the Petitioner cannot be termed to be an 'employee' under section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Act, 1981. He is not entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance under the said Act. As per the decision of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of K.Avanasiappan Vs. The Management of Thekkalur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Furthermore, the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings is only because of the petitioner."

5. The petitioner is placed under suspension from 8.01.2014 and he is not paid subsistence allowance. The reason for denying the subsistence allowance as stated in the order dated 05.05.2014 is as follows:

“TAMIL”

6. The only reason given by the second respondent is that since the petitioner is not covered by the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, as he received more than Rs.3500/- as his basic pay, he is not entitled to Subsistence Allowance.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Special By-Law 31(2) of the second respondent-Co-operative Society, he is entitled to get the Subsistence Allowance. The Special By-Law 31 deals with Suspension. It is his contention that even assuming that the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, is not applicable to him, as per the Special By-Law 31(2) of the Society, he is entitled to be paid the rates of subsistence allowance as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. Alternatively, he has submitted that the Subsistence Allowance cannot be deprived, while he is asked to face the departmental action and the denial of subsistence allowance, amounts to violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. The second respondent has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in K.AVANASIAPPAN V. THE MANAGEMENT OF THEKKALUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK, to sustain the impugned order.

9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. It is relevant to extract the Special By Law 31 of the second respondent-Society:

31. SUSPENSION:

(1) An employee of the society may be placed under suspension from service where:-

(i) an inquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or pending: or

(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest or in the interest of the society:

Provided that an employee who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period longer than forty eight ho