Back
MANJIVE SHUKLA
Pradeep Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manjive Shukla, J.
Heard Sri. Kripa Shankar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, Sri. Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 as well as Sri. Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has prayed for a direction thereby commanding the respondents to pay subsistence allowance admissible to the petitioner with effect from 24.11.2009 till the date of his reinstatement in service along with interest over the delayed payment. Petitioner has also prayed that he may be treated to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. with effect from 2.7.2009 and may be paid all consequential service benefits on the basis of length of his service w.e.f. 2.7.2009.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at Primary School Lokeyapur Khaga, District Fatehpur on 2.7.2009. Just after few months of his joining on the post of Assistant Teache
Upon reinstatement after suspension, the appointing authority must determine subsistence allowance and recognize the entire service length for benefits, not treating reinstatement as a fresh appointm....
Suspended employees are entitled to subsistence allowance as a matter of right, and proper disciplinary proceedings must be initiated post-conviction under Rule 17(c).
A government servant reinstated after dismissal is entitled to full back wages unless delays in disciplinary proceedings are attributable to them.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of salary for the suspension period should be in accordance with Fundamental Rules and the principles of natural justice.
The court upheld the authority's discretion to continue suspension in the context of a pending criminal proceeding, considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for further proceedings.
Suspension without payment of subsistence allowance for an indefinite period is illegal and violative of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Suspension of an employee beyond three months without a charge-sheet is unjustified, entitling the employee to arrear salary for the period of unjustified suspension.
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
