Paras Nath Dwivedy vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner, substantially, is that he has not been paid his subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension with effect from 21.7.1997 to 31.7.1999.

It is submitted by Seamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in course of his suspension superannuated with effect from 31.7.1999/but the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension was not paid to him.

The fact that the subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension has not been paid to the petitioner is not in dispute.

Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that on account of nonavailability of the petitioner subsistence allowance could not be paid to him.

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was facing a criminal charge, he was granted anticipatory bail and althrough he was available in his office.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent authorities are directed to pay the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner during his suspension in terms of Rule 96 of the 3ihar Service Code within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.