Enhancement of subsistence allowance up to 75% is discretionary and not an absolute right of the employee.

The Applicant, a Postal Assistant, was placed under suspension on 01.02.2020 by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj Division, under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

He was initially granted a Subsistence Allowance (SA) equal to leave salary on half-pay

Following a representation and a subsequent appeal directed by the Tribunal in a previous litigation (O.A. 238/2022), the Appellate Authority issued an order on 01.03.2023, enhancing the SA from 50% to 60%

The Appellate Authority noted that the investigation was prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the Applicant

The Applicant filed the present O.A. seeking a direction to increase the SA to the maximum permissible limit of 75% from the date he completed three months of suspension, arguing that the 60% enhancement was insufficient and contravened Article 21 of the Constitution

1. Whether a suspended government servant has an absolute legal right to receive the maximum enhancement of Subsistence Allowance (75% of pay) after the initial three months of suspension

2. Whether the competent authority’s discretion to fix the rate of enhancement within the prescribed limits (up to 50% of the initial allowance) was exercised reasonably in this case

Fundamental Rule (FR) 53(1)(ii)(a), which mandates a review of Subsistence Allowance after three months and allows the competent authority to increase the amount by up to 50% of the initial allowance if the delay in proceedings is not attributable to the government servant

Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Relevant DoPT Office Memorandums

Supreme Court precedent in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999), which held that Subsistence Allowance is essential for an employee's survival and its non-payment or inadequacy can violate the Right to Life under Article 21

O.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1987) regarding the penal significance of suspension and the necessity of providing a minimum livelihood

The Tribunal observed that under FR 53(1)(ii)(a), the enhancement of SA is not an automatic right to the maximum limit; rather, the rules vest discretion in the authority to increase it "up to" an additional 50% of the initial allowance (totaling 75% of pay)

The Tribunal noted a factual contradiction: while the Appellate Authority’s order admitted the Applicant was cooperating and the delay was not his fault, the Respondents’ counter-affidavit alleged non-cooperation

The court emphasized that because the Applicant had remained under suspension for several years (since 2020) and SA is intended for the sustenance of the employee and his family, the adequacy of the allowance must be periodically and fairly reviewed

The court concluded that while it could not unilaterally mandate a 75% rate, the ongoing nature of the suspension warranted a fresh review by the authorities

The Respondents were ordered to communicate the outcome of this review to the Applicant within 60 days from the receipt of the order

No costs were awarded