Enhancement of subsistence allowance under FR 53(1)(ii)(a) is discretionary and not a matter of right.

The applicant, a Senior Technical Assistant in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, was arrested by the CBI on July 28, 2023, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

She was subsequently placed under deemed suspension effective from the date of arrest and granted a subsistence allowance at 50% of her pay.

On October 25, 2023, the respondents extended her suspension for 180 days but maintained the subsistence allowance at 50% (status quo).

The applicant submitted a representation on November 17, 2023, seeking an enhancement of the allowance to 75% pursuant to FR 53(1)(ii)(a), but filed the present Original Application (O.A.) on January 3, 2024, before the expiry of the statutory six-month waiting period for administrative responses.

During the pendency of the O.A., the respondents reviewed the suspension on April 22, 2024, and enhanced the allowance to 75% effective from April 23, 2024.

1. Whether the O.A. was maintainable under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given it was filed before the expiry of six months from the date of the applicant's representation.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to an enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% for the period of extended suspension under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a).

Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing deemed suspension and its review.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 53(1)(ii)(a), which stipulates that subsistence allowance may be increased by up to 50% (totaling 75% of pay) if the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons not attributable to the Government servant.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the limitation period and exhaustion of remedies.

Khem Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 687) regarding the continued service status of a suspended employee.

The Tribunal examined whether the enhancement under FR 53(1)(ii)(a) is a mandatory right and determined that such enhancement is not an automatic right but a discretionary power of the competent authority, which must be exercised based on the facts of each case and supported by logical reasons.

The respondents initially maintained status quo at 50% due to the gravity of the corruption allegations and the ongoing investigation.

The Tribunal observed that in a subsequent review dated April 22, 2024, the competent authority did exercise its discretion to increase the allowance to 75% effective from April 23, 2024.

Since the respondents eventually granted the primary relief sought by the applicant during the litigation, the Tribunal found that the legal grievance regarding the rate of allowance no longer required judicial intervention.

The Tribunal ruled that nothing survived for adjudication; the O.A. and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.