Suspension Prolonged Beyond Three Months Without Employee Fault Entitles Enhancment of Subsistence Allowance Under FR 53

The petitioner, Dharmendra Rajput, was placed under suspension via order dated 15.09.2025.

Having completed over 190 days of suspension while departmental proceedings remained pending, the petitioner sought an enhancement of his subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% of his pay as per Fundamental Rule (FR) 53.

His prior representations were rejected on 13.02.2026 and 25.03.2026 on the grounds of the pendency of Departmental Enquiry No. 05/2025.

Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus for enhancement, arrears, and interest.

1. Whether the respondents are legally mandated to review and potentially enhance the subsistence allowance of a suspended employee under FR 53 upon the completion of 90 and 180 days.

2. Whether the pendency of a departmental enquiry is a valid legal ground to summarily reject a claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance under the provisions of FR 53.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 53 stipulates that a suspended government servant is entitled to a subsistence allowance initially equal to leave salary on half pay [FR 53(1)(ii)(a)].

The Proviso to FR 53(1)(ii)(a) empowers the authority to increase the allowance by up to 50% of the initial amount after three months, provided the prolongation of suspension is not directly attributable to the government servant's conduct.

The court examined the petitioner’s claim that he had been under suspension for more than 190 days without the requisite review of his subsistence allowance.

The court noted the petitioner's argument that the previous rejections (Annexure P/3 and P/4) were arbitrary because they relied solely on the existence of the enquiry rather than assessing who was responsible for the delay in proceedings.

By reproducing the text of FR 53, the court emphasized that the authority has a statutory duty to "vary the amount" based on specific findings recorded in writing regarding the reasons for the prolonged suspension.

The court observed that the petitioner had a pending application dated 28.03.2026 with Respondent No. 4 which remained undecided.

The court ordered that this exercise, including the payment of any subsistence allowance found payable under the law, must be completed within thirty days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.