Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suspended government servant was entitled to subsistence allowance under Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code, and whether such allowance could be denied for want of a certificate that he was not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation or for not marking attendance at the headquarters.
Analysis: Rule 96(1) entitles a government servant under suspension to subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Rule 96(2) only requires a certificate that the suspended employee is not engaged elsewhere. There is no rule requiring a suspended employee to mark attendance at the headquarters. The State may ask for the certificate, but cannot reject the claim on that ground unless the requirement is made and not complied with. The continuation of the employer-employee relationship during suspension supports the entitlement to subsistence allowance.
Conclusion: The claim for subsistence allowance could not be denied on the grounds relied upon by the respondents, and the appellant was entitled to receive the amount due to her deceased husband.
Ratio Decidendi: A suspended employee remains entitled to subsistence allowance, and the State cannot deny it merely because a certificate under the relevant rule was not furnished unless that certificate was first called for.