Further, it was ordered that he would be entitled to arrears of revision of subsistence allowance from 01.01.2002 till 04.08.2005 when he was dismissed from service.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 04.08.2008, this appeal has been preferred by the Union of India.
Respondent was later dismissed from service on 04.08.2005 since he was companyvicted by the Criminal Court vide its judgment dated 30.03.2002.
The Department took up the stand that in view of Note 3 to Rule 7 of Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1997, for short Revised Pay Rules the Respondent would number be entitled to get subsistence allowance on the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996.
Later he filed another representation on 05.07.2005 reiterating the same request which was replied by Memorandum dated 18.08.2005 stating that his earlier representation was already rejected.
Reliance was placed on a Full Bench order of the Tribunal in J.S. Kharat Vs.
Further, it was also companytended that the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.S. Kharat was number companycerned with the applicability of the above mentioned Rules.
Request was rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries vide Memorandum dated 29.10.2002 stating that a person under suspension is number entitled to draw either the increment during the period of suspension or get his pay fixed in the revised scale.
Union of India 2002 2003 CAT Full Bench Judgments 169.
The Respondent after dismissal from service approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench , New Delhi and filed A. No.29/2006 challenging the above mentioned orders dated 29.10.2002 and 18.08.2005 and sought a declaration that he was entitled to get subsistence allowance on the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996.
While undergoing suspension he made a representation on 22.7.2002 for revision of subsistence allowance based on the 5th Pay Commission Report.
This, according to the Tribunal, would lead to an anomalous situation.
06.06.1989 under rule 10 2 of the CCS CCA Rules 1965.
The High Court following its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Police v. Randhir Singh Writ Petition Civil No.713/2008 decided on 29.01.2008 dismissed the appeal holding that it did number find any infirmity in the order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in J.S. Kharats case supra .
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
The Respondent herein was working as a Desk Officer in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the Ministry of Commerce and Industries.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Union of India took up the matter before the Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition Civil No.1899/2007.
Rejecting the companytention the Tribunal took the view that it would be unjust to deny the subsistence allowance on the basis of revised pay to the persons who stood suspended prior to 01.01.1996, especially when persons who were suspended after that date would be entitled to get subsistence allowance on the revised pay scale.
While so, a case was registered against him by Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was placed under suspension by the Department w.e.f.
