APHC010148562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8284/2025 Between: B Somaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following prayer: “to declare the action of the respondents not enhancing subsistence allowances from 50% to 75% from 27.07.2015 to 31.01.2018 after completion of 3 months from the date of suspension as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of 2 CGR, J W.P. No.8284 of 2025 Fundamental Rules and contrary to orders of this HonbleCourt in Writ Appeal 449 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the subsistence allowances from 50% to 75% from 27.07.2015 to 31.01.2018 and to pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents. 3. Petitioner while working as Panchayat Secretary, Pedapulipaka Gram Panchayat, was placed under suspension on 27.04.2015. Later, after filing of O.A. No.1808 of 2018 before APAT, in pursuance to the orders passed, he came to be reinstated into service by proceedings dated 31.01.2018. During said period, petitioner was paid 50% subsistence allowance. Petitioner was issued charge memo dated 22.03.2017, for which he submitted explanation and enquiry is stated to be pending. Petitioner has later requested respondents to enhance the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% upon completion of three months from the date of suspension as in the present case petitioner was placed under suspension beyond a period of three 3 CGR, J W.P. No.8284 of 2025 1 W.A. No.449 of 2021, dated 23.09.2021 months and therefore, claimed for subsistence allowance of 75%. Since the same is not considered, present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in terms of FR-53, petitioner is entitled to be paid subsistence allowance upto 75% as the suspension period spilled over beyond three months and apparently in the present case, he was under suspension from 27.04.2015 to 31.01.2018. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in S.Preaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 , besides the orders passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.13434 and 15212 of 2019 and W.P. No.7647 of 2020. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents placed on record written instructions stating that there are five charges framed against the petitioner dealing with irregularities and the enquiry is going on, therefore, during the period of suspension, he was rightly paid subsistence allowance of 50% in terms of FR 53 and that petitioner is not entitled for any further subsistence allowance. 4 CGR, J W.P. No.8284 of 2025 6. Considered rival submissions. The petitioner, admittedly, has been placed under suspension for a long period i.e., from 27.04.2015 to 31.01.2018. As per FR-53(1)(ii)(a), subsistence allowance at an amount equal to leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary, has to be paid, however, if the period of suspension exceeds three months, the disciplinary authority has been given discretion to vary the amount only in cases where prima facie it was established on charges of corruption, misappropriation and demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, the subsistence allowance has been restricted to 50%. The Judgment of Division Bench of this Court which has been relied on and also coordinate Bench order passed by this Court, dealing with similar issue have taken a view that enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% in cases other than those falling under sub-clause (iv) is justified. 7. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, following the view expressed in the aforesaid judgments, respondents are directed to pay 75% of salary as 5 CGR, J W.P. No.8284 of 2025 subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 27.04.2015 to 31.01.2018. 7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 08.04.2025 SS