M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance and/or full salary during the period when he was in jail custody when, admittedly the order of suspension was issued after the petitioner was released from the jail custody.
(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Senior Work Supervisor in the services of the respondents -BCCL and was posted at Moonidih Western Jharia Area, Coalfields. The petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 26.9.2000 on the allegation of accepting bribe. The petitioner was remanded to jail custody. After his release from jail custody, the petitioner was put under suspension vide office order dated 20.1.2001. The petitioner, on his representation was paid subsistence allowance but only with effect from February, 2001 whereas he ought to have been paid the same with effect from 29.9.2000. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 1450/2002 praying for payment of subsistence allowance for the period from 29.9.2000 to 16.1.2001 during which period the petitioner remained in jail custody. It was stated by the petitioner in the said writ petition that after release from the jail custody he submitted his joining but it was not accepted and, in the meantime, he retired from service on 31.12.2001. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.1.2002 with direction to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority who shall consider and dispose of the representation within a specified time in compliance of the aforesaid order representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the respondents and the same was communicated by the impugned letter dated 2.9.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly submitted that when admittedly, the petitioner was not under suspension for the period 29.9.2000 to 16.1.2001, the respondents have no authority to withhold the salary of the petitioner for that period. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that in the absence of any order of suspension passed by the respondents during the aforesaid period, the petitioner is atleast entitled to subsistence allowance for the said period.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not even entitled to subsistence allowance during the period when he remained in custody on the principle of no work no pay. According to the learned counsel the Certified Standing Order of the respondents does not provide payment of subsistence allowance for the period when a person remained in jail custody without any order of suspension.;