Refusal to enhance subsistence allowance under FR 53 requires recorded reasons.

The applicant, a Senior Statistical Officer, was arrested on 3 January 2025 in connection with an FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, and was placed under suspension.

The suspension was extended by order dated 26 March 2025 for a further 180 days beyond 2 April 2025.

The applicant sought enhancement of his subsistence allowance from 50% to 75%, asserting that the delay in concluding the proceedings was not attributable to him.

The respondents continued the allowance at 50%.

The applicant challenged that decision before the Tribunal; the judgment also records that his suspension was later revoked by order dated 29 March 2026, effective upon expiry of the then-current suspension period.

1. Whether the respondents’ decision to continue the applicant’s subsistence allowance at 50%, without recording reasons, could be sustained under FR 53(1).

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct enhancement to 75%, or remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration.

FR 53(1) of the Fundamental Rules provides for subsistence allowance at the prescribed initial rate and permits the competent authority, where suspension exceeds three months, to increase the allowance by a suitable amount not exceeding 50% of the amount admissible during the first three months if the suspension has been prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the government servant.

The provision requires the relevant reasons to be recorded in writing; enhancement is not automatic and depends on the competent authority’s assessment.

The Tribunal found that the order continuing the allowance at 50% did not disclose reasons for refusing enhancement.

Given FR 53(1)’s requirement that the authority assess whether the prolonged suspension was attributable to the government servant and record its reasons, the unexplained decision could not be sustained.

The Tribunal did not itself determine that the applicant was entitled to 75%; it remitted the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision under FR 53.

It remitted the issue to the competent authority/Suspension Review Committee to reconsider the matter under FR 53 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment.

The Tribunal did not directly grant the requested enhancement or arrears.