Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESH 2026:CGHC:3721 TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.01.21 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7766 of 2023 Ganga Prasad Sinha, S/o Late Shri Bihari Lal Sinha, Aged About 53 Years R/o Nurani Chowk, Near Shiv Mandir, Rajatalab P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Urban Administation And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 03, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rudrapati Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

21.01.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revoke/review the illegal prolong suspension of the petitioner and reinstate him into the services. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and provide 75% of income as subsistence allowance forthwith the petitioner as per the Rules of 53 of the Fundamental Rules, in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal action of the Respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has neither been reinstated in service nor provided the 75% subsistence allowance, despite having been under suspension for more than two and a half years.

3. The suspension order dated 23.01.2021 alleges that the petitioner committed fraud in the preparation of pay slips and transferred amounts to the bank accounts of his family members and other persons, resulting in alleged financial misappropriation. Pursuant to this, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 9(a) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted a representation on 28.12.2022 under Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules, requesting reinstatement and payment of subsistence allowance.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that suspension is not a penalty or a bounty, but a right of the employer; however, the right of the employee to receive subsistence allowance is sacrosanct. The payment of subsistence allowance is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it ensures that a suspended employee can sustain himself and his family and participate effectively in the disciplinary proceedings. Non-payment of subsistence allowance deprives the employee of the ability to defend himself in the inquiry, causing immense financial hardship and mental agony. The petitioner has already submitted a representation for the grant of 75% subsistence allowance before the competent authority, but no action has been taken, leaving him and his family in a situation of extreme financial distress.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr., [2015 (7) SCC 291], held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served within that period. If the charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspensio