- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 2137 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI R LOKANATHA. B.SC. B.ED., MA., LL.B. HGA (P) SR. NO. 640037 (U/SUSPENSION) AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PARTY IN PERSON AND ADVOCATE HCK, BLR., #NO. 27, MATHRUKRUPA, R.D. LAYOUT, B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 030. …PETITIONER (SRI. R. LOKANATHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, P.B. NO. 19953, REGD. OFF YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400 021. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY-1, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 THE LIC OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-600 063. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205. 5. THE MANAGER P AND IR, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205. 6. THE MANAGER LEGAL AND HPF, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205. 7. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND THE MANAGER F AND A, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205. 8. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MARKETING LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 205. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 04.03.2025 NOTICE TO R1 D/W SRI. NISHANTH A.V., CGC FOR R1 SRI. RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4, THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER TO PAY THE SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE WITH AFFECT FROM 03- 10-2011 U/R 36(2), 36(3) AND 36(4), 37 AND 38 OF THE STAFF RULES AS PER LAW AND ALSO AS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2, 3 AND 4 TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW, STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER R/36(3) AND (4) AND COMPLETE THE DE NOVO WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RULES OF LAW, EQUITY ON GOOD FAITH AND TO TAKE AN IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY WITH UTMOST JUDICIOUS CONSCIENCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/party-in-person filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.4 to pay the subsistence allowance with the effect from 03.10.2011 under Rule 36(2), 36(3) and 36(4), 37 and 38 of the staff rules as per the statutory provisions of law, and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to follow the rule of law. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner is the permanent employee in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, working as a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 programmer Grade II/HGA in LIC of India Divisional office, Shivamogga. On 03.10.2011, while on duty, in the IT Department of Divisional Office, the NTPS, Bhadravathi in the pretext of an enquiry for a statement, the petitioner was taken to police station on permission, as recorded by Manager, IT Divisional Office, Shivamogga. The Petitioner was kept in unauthorised police custody from 03.10.2011 to 06.10.2011 and from 06.10.2011 to 10.10.2011. The Senior Divisional Manager as the disciplinary authority suspended the petitioner for his detention in the police custody and the judicial custody for more than 48 hours, and recorded the order of suspension in the attendance register vide order dated 10.10.2011 with retrospective effect i.e., 03.10.2011. The order of suspension is erroneous without statutory provisions of law governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (staff) Rules, 1960. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 4. It is contented that during the period of suspension the respondents have not paid the subsistence allowance from 03.10.2011, till the order of suspension was revoked. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance from 03.10.2011 till the date of revocation. Despite submitting the representation, the respondents did not pay the subsistence allowance. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Respondents 2 to 8 filed a statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is contented that the writ petition involves several disputed points requiring a recording of detailed evidence and appreciation of number of documents and it is contended that the respondents have paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is denied that the respondents have summoned the spouse of the petitioner i.e. Smt. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 Kavitha, who is working in the LIC of India and obtained the amount from her, and the same was adjusted in the books of accounts. It is contented that the respondents have paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 05.10.2011 to 25.02.2012 as follows: For the months of October - 2011- ₹10,442/- November-2011- ₹9,158.61/- December-2011- ₹9,158.61/- January-2012- ₹12,197.61/- February-2012- ₹9,457.49/- 6. The respondents have paid total subsistence amount of ₹50,414.32/- from 05.10.2011 to 25.02.2012, and the said amount was credited to the saving bank account of the petitioner. The respondents have produced the bank statement of the petitioner and letters as per Annexures-R(6) to R(8). Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 7. Heard the arguments of the petitioner/ party-in- person, and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The petitioner/party-in-person submits that the respondents have kept the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours and an order of suspension was passed on 10.10.2011 with a retrospective effect i.e., with effect from 03.10.2011. He submits that the respondents have not paid the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. He also submits that the respondents have taken a cheque from his spouse and the same was paid to the petitioner. He submits that the respondents have played a fraud on the petitioner as well as on his spouse i.e. Smt. P. Kavitha, who is the employee of the respondent Corporation. Hence, he submits that the said amount was paid by his spouse and not by the respondents. He also submits that the subsistence allowance paid by the respondents is not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 in accordance with the Rules. He also submits that the statement of accounts produced by the respondent is only a book adjustment, and no subsistence allowance was paid as per the statement of accounts. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have paid the subsistence allowance, and the said fact has been admitted by the petitioner. He submits that though the petitioner contend that the LIC of India had obtained a cheque from the petitioner's wife, he submits that the petitioner's spouse had obtained a loan from the co-operative bank and the said cheque was issued to the co-operative bank towards repayment of a loan amount, and not towards the subsistence allowance as contended by the petitioner. He submits that the respondents have already paid the subsistence allowance in accordance - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 with the Rules. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the respondent corporation. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The respondent has passed an order of suspension on 10.10.2011 with a retrospective effect i.e., from 03.10.2011. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of suspension and termination, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.15264/2022. This court, vide order dated 22.02.2023 allowed the writ petition in part, and the dismissal order dated 24.11.2012 was quashed with a liberty to the respondents to initiate de novo enquiry as against the petitioner's association with M/s. Metro Marketing Network Company and the alleged unauthorised absence, but with a direction to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 reinstate the petitioner forthwith to the post that he held as of 24.11.2012. The petitioner's claim for the benefits for the period from 24.11.2012 till the date of his reinstatement is left open to be decided in accordance with law subject to the out come of the proposed de nova enquiry. 12. The respondent corporation aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.15264/2022, preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.439/2023. The Hon'ble Division bench vide order dated 24.10.2024 allowed the writ appeal in part. The issue of entitlement and payment of subsistence allowance was kept open for the petitioner to agitate in the independent proceedings which may be instituted by the petitioner herein. 13. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for the payment of subsistence allowances. From the perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondents, it discloses that the respondents have paid subsistence allowance of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 ₹50,414.32/- and the said amount was credited to the savings account of the petitioner, and the petitioner has addressed a letter to the respondent dated 09.05.2012, wherein the petitioner has stated as under: " I have withdrawn all the issues raised by me with regard to the payment of (SA) Subsistence allowance in the interest of my family. Please treat this as a closed without any prejudice and or on any bias". (emphasis supplied) 14. The petitioner issued a letter vide Annexure R8, wherein, he has stated that he has withdrawn all the issues raised by him regarding the payment of subsistence allowance. The petitioner, despite issuing this letter has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowances. 15. As observed above, the respondents have already paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. In - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40037 WP No. 2137 of 2025 view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. I do not find any merits in the writ petition. 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interlocutory applications would not survive, and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV