PRATAP KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/2206/2025 · 2025-02-24
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 125125 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 125125 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11600 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2206 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pratap Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Swadha Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned suspension order dated 27.8.2024 passed by the opposite party No.2 and impugned charge sheet dated 13.9.2024 issued by the opposite party No.3, contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to make payment of 75% of subsistence allowance to the petitioner after three months of suspension order in accordance with law, during pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner."
3. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to Fundamental Rule 53 of the Financial Hand-book, Volume II, Part II to IV, the petitioner is entitled for 75% of the salary as subsistence allowance in case the period of suspension exceeds three months. He submits that the petitioner is getting only 50% of his salary as subsistence allowance and despite representation having been made by the petitioner on 15.1.2025 no decision has been taken by opposite party no.2. He submits that the inquiry proceedings are pending since August, 2024 and despite the reply having been given by the petitioner the same has not been concluded and accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to conclude the inquiry with expedition. 4. Learned Standing counsel does not oppose the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 5.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the representation of
the petitioner dated 15.1.2025, contained in Annexure No.12 to the writ petition, expeditiously say within a period of ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law and in case the petitioner is found to be entitled to the higher amount of subsistence allowance, the same shall be granted to him along with arrears and continue till conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are pending for nearly six months, the opposite parties are directed to conclude the inquiry proceeding within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law subject to cooperation of the petitioner. 7. With aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.2.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench