1 2026:CGHC:24840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 601 of 2024 Varsha Santosh Kunjam W/o Santosh Kunjam Aged About 41 Years Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Durg, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Secretary Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Jail And Correctional Services, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Order Reserved on Final Order delivered on Final Order uploaded on : : : 17th June, 2026 19th June, 2026 19th June, 2026 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.06.19 16:27:36 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Varsha Santosh Kunjam, Petitioner in Person For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General alongwith Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) CAV Order 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) whereby, upon revocation of her suspension, she was posted temporarily at District Jail, Korba. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to release the subsistence allowance admissible to her for the period from August, 2019 to December, 2020. 2. (a) The petitioner in person submits that while she was working as Assistant Jail Superintendent at Central Jail, Raipur, she was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.05.2017 issued by the Director General (Jail) and Correctional Services and a departmental enquiry was contemplated against her. During pendency of the enquiry, the suspension was revoked vide order dated 15.07.2019 and the petitioner was directed to join at District Jail, Korba. She submits that the said order is without jurisdiction as the same was issued by the Deputy Inspector General, Jail and Correctional Services, who was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority competent to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner. (b) She further submits that at the time when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner had recently undergone a cesarean delivery and had made several representations seeking cancellation/modification of the posting order. However, without 3 deciding her objections regarding the legality of the reinstatement order, the respondent authorities stopped payment of her subsistence allowance from August, 2019 to December, 2020. It is submitted that no separate order withholding the subsistence allowance was ever passed by the competent authority. (c) The petitioner in person would further submit that despite repeated representations made by the petitioner raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the authority issuing the reinstatement order and seeking release of the withheld subsistence allowance, the respondent authorities have failed to address the said grievance. It is contended that the impugned order as well as the consequential denial of subsistence allowance are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 3. (i) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was initially posted as Assistant Jail Superintendent at Central Jail, Raipur and was placed under suspension vide order dated 06/05/2017 on account of alleged misconduct, including uploading objectionable content against the Government on social media and remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty. He submits that during pendency of the departmental enquiry, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 15/07/2019 and she was temporarily posted at District Jail, Korba due to administrative exigencies and shortage of staff in the Department. (ii) Learned State counsel further submits that at the time of issuance of the order dated 15/07/2019, the then Director 4 General, Jail and Correctional Services had already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/06/2019, and the Deputy Inspector General, Jail and Correctional Services was functioning as In-charge Head of Jail Headquarters from 01/07/2019 to 16/07/2019. Therefore, the order revoking the suspension and posting the petitioner at Korba was issued by the competent authority in discharge of his official duties. He further submits that despite rejection of her representation vide order dated 14/08/2019, the petitioner did not join at Korba and remained absent from duty. (iii) He further submits that since the suspension stood revoked on 15/07/2019, she was not entitled to subsistence allowance thereafter. Even she failed to join at the place of posting i.e. Korba. The petitioner was specifically informed vide communication dated 14/01/2020 that her entitlement to subsistence allowance had ceased from the date of revocation of suspension. It is also submitted that the departmental enquiry has culminated in an order dated 03/08/2022 imposing the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for the State and perused the documents available on record. 5. From perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.05.2017 and during pendency of the departmental enquiry, the suspension was 5 revoked vide order dated 15.07.2019, whereby she was temporarily posted at District Jail, Korba. The principal challenge of the petitioner is that the said order was issued by the Deputy Inspector General, Jail and Correctional Services, who according to her was not competent to revoke the suspension order. 6. However, from perusal of the return filed by the respondents, it appears that at the relevant point of time, the then Director General, Jail and Correctional Services had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2019 and the Deputy Inspector General, Jail and Correctional Services was functioning as In-charge Head of Jail Headquarters from 01.07.2019 to 16.07.2019. The impugned order dated 15.07.2019 was issued during the said period while discharging the duties and functions of the Head of the Department. In absence of any material to demonstrate that the officer concerned lacked authority under the applicable rules or administrative arrangement then in force, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the order was passed without jurisdiction. Even to buttress her contention with regard to competency of the authority concerned the petitioner failed to produce any document in this respect. Rather, the material available on record indicates that the officer concerned was competent to issue the said order in his capacity as In-charge Head of Jail Headquarters. 7. It is also evident from the record that after revocation of suspension, the petitioner was directed to join her duties at District Jail, Korba. Her request for modification of the posting 6 order was considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 14.08.2019. Thereafter, vide communication dated 14.01.2020, the petitioner was specifically informed that since her suspension had already been revoked, she would not be entitled to subsistence allowance thereafter. Despite the same, the petitioner admittedly did not join at Korba pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2019. 8. Subsistence allowance is payable only during the period an employee remains under suspension. Once the suspension stood revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service, her entitlement to receive subsistence allowance came to an end. If thereafter the petitioner chose not to join at the place of posting despite repeated directions, she cannot claim subsistence allowance for the said period as a matter of right. 9. It is further relevant to note that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner has already culminated in a final order dated 03.08.2022 whereby punishment has been imposed upon her. The record also reveals that the respondents have consistently taken the stand that the petitioner was not entitled to subsistence allowance after revocation of suspension and the said stand was communicated to her on several occasions. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not 7 entitled to claim subsistence allowance for the period from August, 2019 to December, 2020 after revocation of her suspension and her failure to join at the place of posting. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar