An authority must provide reasoned justification when rejecting an enhancement of subsistence allowance and is mandatorily required to periodically review long-standing suspension orders in accordance with prescribed governmental guidelines.

ORDER :

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned counsel for the Government, takes notice for the respondents.

2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Government appearing for the respondents.

4. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 06.08.2025, wherein the request of the petitioner to enhance the subsistence allowance from the date of expiry of the six months period of suspension in terms of Rule 53(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government , was negatived by the third respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the there is absolutely no application of mind on the part of the third respondent nor any reason was assigned by the third respondent for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Rule 53(1)(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government specifically provides for enhancement of subsistence allowance in case of continued suspension beyond six months. However, the same is not automatic, but, subject to examination of the facts and circumstances of each case. In case if the delinquent employee is found responsible for the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal case, then he may not be entitled for enhancement of subsistence allowance. But, in case, where the delinquent employee is noway responsible for the delay for conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the delinquent employee may be entitled for enhancement of subsistence allowance.

6. In the instant case, the third respondent, while issuing the impugned proceedings, has not applied his mind and the same is apparent on the face of the impugned proceedings. The third respondent has simply made a reference to the request of the petitioner and rejected the same by passing a cryptic order by simply saying that the request for the petitioner was considered and rejected. Such an arbitrary rejection is bound to be declared as illegal and against the principles of natural justice. As the impugned order is obviously arbitrary on the face of it, this Court does not see any reason to invite counter-affidavit from the respondents as the same cannot be improved by supplementing the reasons for sustaining the impugned proceedings. Learned counsel for the Government appearing for the respondents acceded for remanding the matter back to the third respondent for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the subsistence allowance from the date of expiry of the six months period of suspension.

7. Then, coming to the second limb of the relief sought for by the petitioner to revoke the impugned suspension is concerned, there cannot be any order straightaway directing revocation of suspension, as admittedly criminal proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner are pending. At this stage, it is necessary to notice that the Government, taking into consideration the issues relating to the prolonged suspension and delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, has issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No. 81, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 04.08.2022, formulating certain guidelines, which also provide for reviewing the orders of suspension on expiry of three months. Paragraph No.11 of the said Government Orders reads as under:

11.The Government, after careful examination, reiterates the guidelines issued in the Government Order second read above with slight modification as follows:

(i) The power of ordering suspension should be exercised carefully and with restraint. Before a suspension order is issued, the authority concerned must be clear in mind that it is necessary. Prolonged suspen