High CourtsSingle Bench

Dr. Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 MP CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition 5916/13

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 374 words

Sujoy Paul, J.—With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. The singular grievance advanced by Shri D.P. Singh is that by impugned order petitioner''s suspension period is decided by the respondents by holding that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any pay and allowances for the suspension period and shall be entitled only for the subsistence allowance, which has already been paid.

2.

Shri D.P. Singh advanced singular contention that the petitioner was subjected to a major penalty disciplinary proceedings which ended into imposition of minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. By placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court, reported in Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which is recently followed by Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and another Vs. Shailendra, , it is contended that the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.

3.

Prayer is opposed by Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

In the opinion of this Court, the question involved in this case is no more res Integra. The General Administration Department of the State Government by circular No. Gyapan Kra. 21709 CR 260-I(3) 68 dated 26.9.1968, decided to grant benefits of pay and allowances in the event minor punishments are imposed in a disciplinary proceeding. In Y.S. Sachan (supra) this Court opined that when major penalty proceedings ended with imposition of minor punishment, the employee is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the suspension period. The Division Bench in recent judgment in Shailendra (supra) relied on the said GAD circular dated 26.9.1968 and opined that the employee is entitled to get full salary for the entire period of suspension. In the light of said binding judgments, this petition deserves to be allowed.

6.

Accordingly, the impugned order, Annexure P-1, is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner for the suspension period. The said payment be made to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

7.

Petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.