Denial of enhanced subsistence allowance requires recorded reasons attributing delay to the delinquent employee.

The applicant, an Official Liquidator under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, was placed under deemed suspension following his arrest in a criminal case

The initial 90-day suspension was reviewed and extended for 180 days via an Office Order dated 25.10.2023

While extending the suspension, the respondents directed the maintenance of "status quo" regarding his subsistence allowance, effectively denying an enhancement from 50% to 75% after the expiry of the first 90 days

The applicant challenged this limited portion of the order, arguing that the denial lacked recorded reasons and failed to establish that the delay in proceedings was attributable to him

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, asserting the application was premature under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the applicant had not waited six months for a decision on his representation before approaching the Tribunal

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, despite being filed before the expiry of six months from the date of the applicant's representation?

2. Whether the competent authority is mandated to record specific reasons and findings regarding the attribution of delay before denying the enhancement of subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a)?

The court primarily applied Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a), which stipulates that if a suspension exceeds three months, the subsistence allowance may be increased by up to 50% of the initial amount, provided the prolongation is not attributable to the government servant and the authority records reasons in writing

It further relied on Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, noting that the requirement to exhaust remedies is directory ("ordinarily") and not an absolute bar when a final order is challenged

The Tribunal followed the precedent of the Delhi High Court in Mahabir Prasad Yadav v. Lakshmibai College, which held that the discretion to deny enhancement is not unfettered and requires objective reasons demonstrating the delinquent's responsibility for the delay

The Tribunal first addressed maintainability, ruling that because the applicant challenged a final order (the Office Order dated 25.10.2023) rather than a mere lack of response to a representation, the cause of action was immediate; furthermore, the "continuing deprivation" of subsistence allowance justified the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion to hear the matter

On the merits, the Tribunal found the impugned order legally vulnerable because it merely directed "status quo" without recording any finding on whether the prolongation of suspension was attributable to the applicant

The Tribunal emphasized that under FR 53, the gravity of allegations or the pendency of a CBI investigation are extraneous factors and cannot justify the denial of enhancement

It noted that the competent authority failed to independently apply its mind to the statutory parameters of FR 53, instead conflating the review of suspension with the determination of subsistence allowance

It held that the denial of enhancement without recorded reasons was arbitrary and violated the mandate of Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a)

Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the Office Order dated 25.10.2023 to the limited extent of the "status quo" direction on subsistence allowance

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case and pass a reasoned, speaking order regarding the enhancement within six weeks, focusing on whether the delay in proceedings was attributable to the applicant

The OA was disposed of without costs