Entitlement to subsistence allowance is recognized under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, requiring adherence to established procedural mandates.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ….....................................

W.A.No.399 of 2026 ….............................................................. Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT P.V. Balakrishnan, J This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.10979 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the 1^st respondent herein.

2. The 1^st respondent herein/writ petitioner, while working as a Senior Clerk in the appellant bank, was suspended from service on 02.09.2023, as per Ext.P1 order on the allegation that he had committed various irregularities. In Ext.P1, it is specifically stated that the 1^st respondent will be entitled for subsistence allowance during the suspension period. Even though the 1^st respondent demanded payment of subsistence allowance, the appellants denied the same. It is hence, the 1^st respondent filed the afore writ petition seeking a direction that he be paid subsistence allowance from

02.09.2023, till date.

3. The learned Single Judge after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to pay the 1^st respondent arrears of subsistence allowance due to him, till date and continue paying the same, till the suspension is revoked.

4. Heard Adv. Swathi Kumar B.S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv. S. Sachithananda Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent .

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 1^st respondent did not approach the appellants seeking subsistence allowance, and he also did not submit the non- employment certificate, which is a mandatory requirement for sanctioning subsistence allowance. He further submitted that the 1^st respondent has misappropriated a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, thereby causing loss to the appellants and that the appellants are in the process of initiating action against him. He contended that, as evidenced by Ext.R2(a), the 1^st respondent is profitably gained from farming operations for the last two years by engaging in agricultural activities and therefore, is not entitled to get subsistence allowance.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He submitted that as per Ext.P1, the appellants have admitted the entitlement of the 1^st respondent for subsistence allowance and that even though he has produced Ext.P2 non-employment certificate, the appellants have not sanctioned the subsistence allowance. He further contended that Ext.R2(a) will not in any manner help the appellants to avoid the payment of subsistence allowance.

7. The materials on record, especially Ext.P1, would go to show that the appellants are not disputing the entitlement of the 1^st respondent for subsistence allowance. The contention raised by the appellants in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition is that the 1^st respondent has not produced a non- employment certificate, which is a mandatory requirement for sanctioning subsistence allowance. But as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, it can be seen that the 1^st respondent has produced Ext.P2 non-employment certificate, even though during the pendency of the writ petition. As regards Ext.R2(a), we are of the view that the same cannot be considered as an employment in an establishment as stipulated in the proviso to Section 3 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act , 1972.

8. It is a settled law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. M/s Scope Sales