WP/26919/2005 of P. Rambabu S/o Sri P. Guru Lingacharyulu Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited rep by Chairman on 26 December 2005

O R D E R:

The petitioner challenges the order, dated 03-11-2005, passed by the thirdrespondent. The matter relates to the payment of subsistence allowance to thepetitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, anemployee of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, by issuing a charge sheet,dated 28-03-2003. Earlier to that, he was placed under suspension on 31-07-2002. Prosecution was also initiated against him. He filed WP.No.20392 of 2005challenging a charge memo, dated 28-03-2003, and additional charge memo, dated 09-03-2004. Severalcontentions were urged and one of the grievances made by him is that he wasnot being paid the subsistence allowance. The writ petition was disposed of on16-09-2005. This Court refused to interdict the disciplinary proceedings anddirected conclusion of the same, within a period of three months from the dateof receipt of a copy of the said order. As regards the grievance of the petitionerin the matter of payment of subsistence allowance, the respondents wererequired to pass appropriate orders. It was in this context, that the impugnedorder was passed, indicating that the petitioner did not comply with theconditions indicated under Rule 14 of ONGC (Pay and Allowance)Regulations/Rules, 1972.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner hadattended on every date of enquiry, the respondents are taking a hyper technicalview of the matter, in insisting that the petitioner must have been present on25[th] of every month. He also submits that the petitioner is not gainfully employed elsewhere and that there was no justification in not paying thesubsistence allowance.

Learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits thatit is the petitioner that has to squarely blame himself for the present state ofaffairs. According to him, the petitioner did not choose either to be present on25[th ]of every month or to submit non-employment certificate.

It is not in dispute that an employee would be entitled to be paid thesubsistence allowance, if he is placed under suspension. For that purpose,Rule 14 of ONGC (Pay and Allowance) Regulations/Rules, 1972, mandates thata suspended employee must file a certificate of non-employment on the payday, and shall also present himself at the head quarters on 25[th] of every month.The petitioner does not dispute that he did not comply with those twoconditions. The fact that he has been attended the enquiry on various datescannot be treated as compliance with the condition, as to his presence in thehead quarter on 25[th] of every month. Further, the certificate issued by thepetitioner himself, stating that he was not gainfully employed in any otherorganization, has its own significance and the petitioner must not have foundany difficulty in submitting the same. It is represented that such a certificatehas been filed only in the recent past, after the impugned order came to bepassed. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with theimpugned order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Inasmuch as the petitioner is said tohave filed a certificate, the same shall be taken into account by therespondents, who in turn, shall take necessary action in accordance with law.There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

kvni