Trilok Chand Jain v. University of Delhi & Anr

2. During the course ofthe submissions, Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that Sub Clause 8ofRule 62 contemplates the authority to review the suspension of the employee 2015:DHC:11540 before the expiry of90 days. He also lays stress on the fact that the 90 days period will count from the date the employee detained in the custody is released. Healso states that insofar as Mr.Trilok Chand Jain isconcerned, he was released from the jail on April 07, 2014, while Mr.Satya Pal Singh was released on April 09, 2014. The period of90 days would expire only on July 08, 2014 and July 10, 2014 respectively. According to him, it would be thereafter only theorder ofsuspension, inthe absence ofreview, can besaid to be illegal and non-est. In other words, for the period between the date of order ofsuspension and till July 08, 2014 ( in the case ofTrilok Chand Jain) and July 10, 2014 (in the case ofSatya Pal Singh), the petitioners would not be entitled to any salary expect the subsistence allowance as already paid to them. He would rely upon the judgment of High Court of Calcutta in JV.F.C.T 43/2010, datedJuly 28, 2010, SriAbanindra Mohanty v^. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court has concluded as under:- "The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to allow the petitioner to join the dutyforthwith andpay salary and allowances regularly. The petitioner will also be entitled to the arrear salary and allowances from the very next day after the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension in terms of the order ofsuspension dated 29th December, 2008 till the date of joining the duties. w (O Accordingly, the respondent authorities arefurther directed to pay the aforesaid arrear dues to the petitioner after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid to the said petitioner at an early date butpositively within a period of four weeksfrom the date ofcommunication of this order. In the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the petitioners does not dispute the proposition advanced by Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondents. In other words, he concede that for the period before July 08, 2014 and July 10, 2014 the petitioners would be entitled to subsistence allowance, which they have already received.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, the suspension of the petitioners post July 08, 2014 and July 10, 2014 is illegal, non-est and is deemed to have been revoked. The petitioners shall be entitled to the arrears ofsalary post July 8, 2014 and July 10, 2014 respectively, subject to the adjustment ofthe subsistence allowance already paid to them, within a period offour weeks jfrom today. The writpetitions aredisposed of in terms of above.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

AUGUST 13, 2015