Holding

The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application; the cause of action for enhancement of subsistence allowance accrues each month the reduced allowance is paid, allowing the Tribunal to entertain the petition and, if appropriate, order a revision notwithstanding the five‑year lapse.

Summary

P.L. Shah, an Upper Division Clerk, was suspended in July 1975 pending criminal proceedings and was granted a subsistence allowance of 50% of his salary. In May 1982 the allowance was reduced to 25% of his salary. Shah filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1988 seeking restoration of the original allowance, but the Tribunal dismissed it on the ground that the application was barred by the limitation provision of section 21(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the petition because the cause of action for enhancement of subsistence allowance arises each month the reduced allowance is paid, allowing the Tribunal to consider the application within the three‑year period from the date of filing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the matter remanded for merits determination.

Issues considered

Whether the limitation provision of section 21(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 bars an application filed more than five years after the reduction of subsistence allowance.
Whether the cause of action for enhancement of subsistence allowance accrues each month the reduced allowance is paid.
Whether the Tribunal may entertain and decide on the application despite the lapse, by fixing a date within the three‑year period.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 21(1), s. 21(2), s. 21(3)

Subjects

Administrative Tribunals Actsubsistence allowancesuspensionlimitation periodcause of actiongovernment servantreview of allowancecriminal proceedings

Judgment

l

P.L. SHAH
A v. +
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

JANUARY 18, 1989

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.]

Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 21(2)-
Subsistence allowance-Reduction of-Application seeking restoration
moved after five years-Maintainability of-Period of limitation-
Computation of-Held, cause of action arises every month in which
reduced subsistence allowance is paid.
c
Civil Services: Suspension order-Nature and purpose of- ·j
Subsistence allowance-Sufficiency of-Need to review from time to
time.

D Sub-section (2) of s. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
empowers the Tribunal not to entertain an application the grievance in
respect of which had arisen beyond three years immediately preceding
the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal
became exercisable under the Act.

E The appellant, an Upper Division Clerk, was suspended from
service, in July 1975 pending on account of the institution of criminal
proceedings against him. By an order dated August 4, 1975 he was ,..
sanctioned subsistence allowance at the rate of 50 per cent of his salary
last drawn. By a further order dated May 6, 1982 the subsistence allo- .
wance was reduced to 25 per cent of the salary he was drawing on the ·t I
F date of suspension. He moved a petition before the Tribunal in the year "'· ·-
1988 for a direction to the Government to restore the original order of
August 4, 1975. That petition was dismissed by the Tribunal solely on
the ground that the order reducing the allowance having been passed on
May 6, 1982, it could not entertain the application made more than five
years thereafter, apparently on the ground of limitation set out in s.
G 21(2) of the Act.

In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant .,_
that the Government had failed to review the order of May 6, 1982 even
though a long period of five years had elapsed after the reduction of the
subsistence allowance, that the delay in conclusion of the criminal pro-
H ceedings, as a consequence of which he had been kept under suspension,
224
225
·-- -- - ---~---.--'' - -
'

was not, due to him and in the circumstances it was not Just and
A
appropriate that he should be paid a subsistence allowance at a reduced
rate for an unreasonably long period. '

Allowing the appeal,

HELD: 1. The Tribunal was not right in rejecting the applica- B
lion. [229F]

2. The ca11se of action in respect of a prayer seeking enhancement
/
r of subsistence allowance arises every month in which the said allowance
at the reduced rate is paid. Therefore, in the instant case, though no ·
relief could be given to the appellant in respect of the period which was
beyond three years from the date on which the Tribunal commenced to c
exercise its powers under the Act, it was quite open to the Tribunal to
consider whether it was proper for the Government to continue to give
effect to the order dated !\lay 6, 1982 from any subsequent date, and if
the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said order was required to
be revised it could pass an appropriate order notwithstanding the· fact D
that a period of five years had elapsed from the date on which the order
reducing the subsistence allowance was passed. While doing so it was
open to the Tribunal to fix a date within the period of the said
three years from which the appellant should be paid subsistence
allowance at the revised rate having due regard to the date of the
application. [229C-E] E

3.1. The very nomenclature of the allowance makes it clear that
the amount paid to a Government servant under suspension should be
sufficient for bare subsistence in this world in which the prices of the

I necessaries of life are increasing every day on account of the conditions
of inflation obtaining in the country. More so, when a Government F

:!
I
servant cannot engage himself in any other activity during the period of
suspension. The amount of subsistence allowance payable to the Gov-
ernment servant concerned should, therefore, be reviewed _from time to
time where the proceedings drag on for a Jong time, even though there
m~y be no express rule insisting on such review. [228F-G I
G
, //
' 3.2. In doing so, the authority concerned no doubt has to take
,..._ into account ll'hether the Government servant is in any way responsible
for the nndue delay in the disposal of the proceedings initiated against
him. IC the Government servant is not responsible for such delay or
even if he is responsible for such delay to some extent but is not primar~
ily responsible for it, it is for the Government to consider whether the H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989) 1 S.C.R.

order of suspension should be continued or whether the subsistence
A allowance should be varied to his advantage or not. [228G-H; 229AI +
4. The case is remanded to the Tribunal to dispose of the applica-
tion made by the appellant on merits. [229G l

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 38 of
B ~. ~

From the Judgment and order dated 15.3.1988 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A. No. 49 of 1988.

P.H. Parekh and Shishir Sharma for the Appellant.
c
B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indu Malhotra and
C. V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. --).

'---- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant was working as an
Upper Division Clerk in the year 1975. He was placed under suspen-
sion by an order dated 25.7.1975 as a result of the institution of a
criminal prosecution against him and he continues to remain under
suspension till today. By an order dated 4.9.1975 he was sanctioned
subsistence allowance at the rate of 50 per cent of his salary last drawn.
E By a further order made on 6.6.1982 the subsistence allowance was
reduced to 25 per cent of the salary he was.drawing on the date of
suspension. The increments he would have earned from time to time
and the periodical revisions of pay-scales were not taken into consid-
eration in determining the subsistence allowance.

F The charge-sheet was filed in the criminal case against the appel-
lant in 1976 and the case was committed to the sessions, but the com-
mittal proceedings were quashed by the High Court in 1978. Then the
proceedings again began before the Metropolitan Magistrate in 1979.
The case, however, has not yet come to an end.

G Aggrieved by the denial of the salary and allowances due to him
for a long time on account of the order of suspension and in particular
the orde.r fixing the subsistence allowance at 25 per cent of the salary
which he was drawing at the time of suspension by the Order dated
6.5.1982, the appellant approached in the year 1988 the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench) for a direction to be'
H
P.L. SHAH v. U.O.J. IVENKATARAMIAH, J.J 227

issued to the Government to restore the original Order dated 4.8.1975
A
by which the subsistence allowance was fixed at 50 per cent of his
salary. That petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated
15.3.1988 on the ground that the appellant had approached the
Tribunal more than five years after the date on which the Order dated
6.5.1982 had been passed apparently on the ground of limitation set
out in sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals B
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the
order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed this appeal.

, .-~
The question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is
whether in a case of this nature, the Tribunal was right in holding that
the application before it, was barred by time. Sub-section (1) of sec-
tion 21. of the Act, no doubt, says that a Tribunal shall not admit an
application in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause
(a) of sub-section (2) of section .20 has been made in connection with
c

the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the
date on which such final order has been made, and in a case where an
appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub- D
section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had
expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within
one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
Sub-section (2) of section 21, however, provides that notwithstanding
)lo anything contained in sub-section ( 1) of section 21 where the grievance
in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any
order made at any time during the period of three years immediately E
preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of
• the Tribunal become exercisable under the Act in respect of the matter
to which such order related, and no proceedings for the redressal of
such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any
High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is
made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may F
be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from
the said date, whichever period expires later. Sub-section (3) of sec-
tion 21 further confers power on the Tribunal to condone the delay in
certain circumstances if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had
sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
G
In the present case the main grievance of the appellant was not
-!if· that the Order dated 6.5.1982 by which the subsistence allowance
payable to him was reduced to 25 per cent was bad at the commence-
ment although there were some. allegations to that effect but it was one
relating to the failure of the authority or the Government to review the
Order dated 6.5.1982 even though a long period of 5 years had elapsed H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

after'the reduction of the subsistence allowance. His contention was
A
that the delay in the conclusion of the criminal proceedings as a conse-
quence of which he had been kept under suspension was not due to
him and in the circumstances it was not just and proper that he should
be paid a subsistence allowance at a reduced rate for an unreasonably
long period. In support of his case the appellant relied upon a decision
B dated 23.6.1987 of the very bench of the Tribunal in Shri Bhupendra
Mahashuklal Mehtap v. The Union of India & Ors., in T.A. No. 223 of
1986 (S.C.A. No. 3509 of 1922) in which Fundamental Rule 53 which
authorised the Government to review an order regarding subsistence
allowance arose for consideration. In the said case the Ahmedabad
Bench of the Tribunal quashed the Order dated 6.5.1982 passed
C against the applicant in that case by which the subsistence allowance
payable to the said applicant had been reduced.
An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a
person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is
found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated
against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in
0
the public interest and also in the interest of the Government servant
concerned. The subsistence allowance is paid by the Government so
that the Government servant against whom an order of suspension is
passed on account of the pendency of any disciplinary proceeding or a
criminal case instituted against him could maintain himself and his
E dependants until the departmental proceeding or the criminal case as
the case may be comes to an end and appropriate orders are passed
against the Government servant by the Government regarding his
right to continue in service etc. depending upon the final outcome of "
the proceedings instituted against him. The very nomenclature of the
allowance makes it clear that the amount paid to such a Government
servant should be sufficient for bare subsistence in this world in which
~ '
F the prices of the necessaries of life are increasing every day on account "--
of 'the 'Conditions of inflation obtaining in the country. It is futher to
be noted that a Government servant cannot engage himself in any
other activity during the period of suspension. The amount of sub-
sistence allowance payable to the Government servant concerned
G should, therefore, be reviewed from time to time where the proceed-
ings drag on for a long time, even though there may be no express rule
insisting on such review. In doing so the authority concerned no doubt
has to take into account whether the Government servant is in any way
responsible for the undue delay in the disposal of the proceedings
initiated against him. If the Government servant is not responsible for
H such delay or even if he is responsible for such delay to some extent but
is not primarily responsible for it, it is for the Government to recon-
P.L. SHAH v. U.0.1. IVENKATARAMIAH, J.] 229

-+ sider whether the order of suspension should be continued or whether
the subsistence allowance should be varied to his advantage or not.
A
The decision on the said question no doubt depends upon several
factors relevant to the case. In the instant case the appellant was
suspended in the year 1975. Now nearly 13 years have elapsed from the
date of suspension. He was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50
per cent of the salary last drawn by him from 1915 and 1982 and from B
1982 he is being paid 25 per cent of the salary last drawn by him. It is
not clear from the record before us, since the application made by the
applicant was dismissed by the Tribunal at the preliminary stage,
whether the appellant was responsible for the inordinate delay in the
disposal of the case instituted against him. In the circumstances of the
case we are of the view that even though no relief could be given to the
appellant in respect of the period which was beyond three years from
c
the date on which the Tribunal commenced to exercise its powers
under the Act, it was quite open to the Tribunal to consider whether it
was proper for the Government to continue to give effect to the Order
dated 6.5 .1982 from any subsequent date and if the Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the Order dated 6.5.1982 was required to be D
revised it could pass an appropriate order notwithstanding the fact that
a period of five years had elapsed from the date on which the order
reducing the subsistence allowance was passed. While doing so it was
open to the Tribunal to fix a date within the period of the said three
years from which the appellant should be paid the subsistence allo-
wance at the revised rate of course, having due regard to the date of E

- the application also. In the alternative, the Tribunal could have asked
the authority concerned to review the order.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the
application solely on the ground that the order reducing the subsist-
ence allowance having been passed on 6.5.1982 the Tribunal could not
F
entertain an application for directing the Government to revise the
Order dated 6.5.1982 even in respect of any period within three years
from the date on which the Tribunal commenced to exercise its powers
having due regard to the date of the application also since we feel that
the cause of action in respect of such prayer arises every month in
Which the subsistence allowance at the reduced rate is paid. We there-
G
fore set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case to it to
. ..'.,<. dispose of the application made by the appellant on merits. We make
an order accordingly.
There is no order as to costs.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed. H