Facts
The applicant, a Junior Engineer (Civil) with the ESIC, was placed under suspension on 15.12.2025, an order which also transferred his headquarters from New Delhi to Chhattisgarh
Source reference: p. 2Although the Tribunal stayed the change of headquarters in a previous application (OA No. 4915/2025) and directed the respondents to decide his appeal, the respondents failed to comply
Source reference: p. 2On 05.03.2026, the respondents extended the suspension for an additional 180 days without revising the subsistence allowance
Source reference: p. 3Despite a representation filed on 23.02.2026, the respondents failed to release the subsistence allowance or enhance it after the initial three-month period, causing the applicant financial hardship
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the respondents are required to release and subsequently revise the subsistence allowance in accordance with the statutory provisions after the suspension exceeded three months
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the applicant's pending representation regarding the non-payment and revision of subsistence allowance warrants a time-bound direction for disposal
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The Tribunal relied upon Fundamental Rule (FR) 53(1)(ii)(a) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 04.11.2022 regarding "Pay and allowances during the suspension period"
Source reference: p. 3Under these rules, a suspended official is entitled to a subsistence allowance equivalent to leave salary on half-pay
Source reference: p. 3If suspension exceeds three months, the authority is competent to increase the allowance by up to 50% if the prolongation is not attributable to the government servant, or reduce it by up to 50% if the servant is responsible for the delay
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The applicant sought the release of arrears from 15.12.2025 and a 50% enhancement effective from 05.03.2026 under FR 53
Source reference: p. 2The Tribunal observed that the respondents had neither released the allowance nor disposed of the applicant’s representation dated 23.02.2026
Source reference: p. 3During the proceedings, the applicant limited his prayer to seeking a reasoned disposal of his representation in light of the DoPT guidelines dated 04.11.2022, to which the respondents raised no objection
Source reference: p. 4Consequently, the Tribunal determined that a directed administrative review was the appropriate remedy at the admission stage without further adjudication on the merits
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation dated 23.02.2026 within four weeks of receiving the order
The respondents must pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the DoPT guidelines dated 04.11.2022 regarding the payment and variation of subsistence allowance
Source reference: p. 4The Miscellaneous Application (MA) for filing dim annexures was also allowed
Source reference: p. 2Original Court PDF
SANWARMALCHOUDHARYvsEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in