1 2026:CGHC:16833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6350 of 2021 B. Nageshwar Rao S/o Late B.S. Rao Aged About 41 Years Working As Technician (Distn), (Suppended) At Cspdcl Zone Ambikapur, 87/03 Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, Distrtict -Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through General Manager, Cspdcl, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Executive Director (Rjn-R), Cspdcl, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Executive Engineer (O And M) Dn. Cspdcl, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Engineer (Ar), Cspdcl Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Engineer (Rjnr) Cspdcl Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Junior Engineer, Cspdcl Janakpur, Distribution Centre, District Manendragarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.5, whereby the representation made by Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 the petitioner with regard to grant of subsistence allowance was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, petitioner was holding the post of Technician (Distn) at CSPTCL in Ambikapur region and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.08.2019, and transferred to Ambikapur zone from Ghumka under E.E. (O&M), Dn. CSPDCL, Rajnandgaon. thereafter, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 28.11.2020 and his services were transferred to CSPTCL, Janakpur under Manendragarh zone. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the transfer order, whereby the services of the petitioner were transferred from Rajnandgaon to Janakpur has never been served upon him, therefore, the petitioner failed to join at the transferred place. He would further submit that the said order was communicated to the petitioner only in the month of July, 2021, thereafter the petitioner resumed his duties. He would also submit that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance for the period until the transfer order was communicated. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 28.11.2020, and thereafter, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any subsistence allowance. 3 5. Heard. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 28.11.2020, prior to the transfer order, and merely because the said transfer order was not served upon the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim subsistence allowance after revocation of suspension. 7. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the competent authority, if so advised. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim