JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 1.8.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the entire period of suspension with interest @ 18% p.a. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (1) That the petitioner had been working on the post of Stenographer in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh (Respondent No. 2) since 21.10.1997. (ii) That respondent No. 3 (Shri Gulab Chand Sharma, RHJS) joined as Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh in the month of February, 2001, but the relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 (Shri Gulab Chand Sharma) were not cordial because of many reasons as are mentioned in para 5 to 9 of the writ petition. (iii) That further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner fell sick on 30.5.2001 and took treatment initially from an Ayurvedic Chikitsak.Thereafter the petitioner sought treatment from Dr. Beniwal from 3.6.2001 onwards and on 6.6.2001, the petitioner had been admitted in Government Hospital and was discharged on 7.6.2001. However, he was advised bed rest upto 11.6.2001 and the Government Hospital issued Medical & Fitness Certificates to resume duty on 12.6.2001. (iv) That further case of the petitioner is that when he reported for joining duty on 12.6.2001, he was not taken on duty on the ground that he should have submitted fitness certificates from all the doctors who had treated him. Not only this, a notice was issued on 11.6.2001 (Annex. 1) by the respondent No. 2 (Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh) to the petitioner to show cause as to why the action be no taken against him for remaining absent from duty. (v) That further case of the petitioner is that through order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh), he was put under suspension in anticipation of an enquiry to be initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958). Thereafter, he was served with a charge sheet dated 24.7.2001 (Annex. 3) along with statement of allegations. Thereafter, he was served with a charge sheet dated 24.7.2001 (Annex. 3) along with statement of allegations. (vi) That the further case of the petitioner is that in-spite of presenting joining report on 12.6.2001 as well as on 13.6.2001, the petitioner was not taken on duty and he was being shown absent. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the suspension order was served on the petitioner on 13.6.2001 and thereafter he submitted an application dated 2.7.2001 (Annex. 5) for grant of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension but that application was dismissed through Order dated 3.7.2001 (Annex. 6) passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Shit Gulab Chand Sharma, RHJS, (the then Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh) on the ground that fitness certificates were not produced as they should have been produced in the prescribed proforma. (viii) When the application (Annex. 5) for grant of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension was rejected by respondent No. 3 (Gulab Chand Sharma) vide order dated 3.7.2001 (Annex. 6) he also approached that Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court through representation dated 11.7.2001 (Annex. 8). (ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in spite of several representations, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. After the transfer of respondent No. 3 (Shri Gulab Sharma), when the District Judge Shri Hari Singh Punta was holding the additional charge of the court of special Judge, NDPS cases, Hanumangarh, he ordered for grant of subsistence allowance to the petitioner through Order dated 14.8.2001 (Annex. 11) but in spite of that subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner. (x) That the further case of the petitioner is that when the matter of subsistence allowance came to the knowledge of the Enquiry Officer Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur, RHJS (ADJ Fast Track Hanumangarh), he through order dated 23.3.2001 (Annex. 15) ordered that the petitioner was entitled for subsistence allowance since 13.6.2001 after production of fitness certificates but subsistence allowance had not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer. 3. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and their main case is that no doubt on resuming duty on 12.6.2001, the petitioner submitted Medical & Fitness Certificates from Dr. Beniwal and Dr. Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer. 3. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and their main case is that no doubt on resuming duty on 12.6.2001, the petitioner submitted Medical & Fitness Certificates from Dr. Beniwal and Dr. Saharan but Medical & Fitness Certificate of Vaidya Shri Prem Ratan was not submitted and since Certificates in the prescribed proforma were not produced by the petitioner, he was not allowed to join duty and thus he was not entitled for subsistence allowance. Hence, no case is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute in this case on the point that the petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent no. 2 (Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh in anticipation of an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. There is also no dispute on the point that on 12.6.2001 he submitted his Medical & Fitness Certificates but according to the respondents, the same were not in the prescribed proforma and therefore, he was not allowed to resume duty on 12.6.2001. 6. There is also dispute on the point that suspension order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. 2) was served on the petitioner 13.6.2001 and thus the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance w e.f. 13.6.2001 but the respondents denied the same on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted Medical & Fitness Certificates from all doctors from whom he had taken treatment in the prescribed proforma, therefore, he was not allowed to resume duties and since he was not allowed to resume the duties, thus he was not entitled for grant of subsistence allowance. 7. In my opinion, reasonings given by the respondents are to be depreciated. The Fact whether Certificates produces by the petitioners were in the prescribed proforma or not was to be seen in the enquiry which was been initiated against the petitioner for remaining absent on duty from 30.5.2001 to 11.6.2001. Not only this, this period cannot be said to be a long period of leave on medical grounds. Further more, reasons given in the order dated 3.7.2001 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the application (Annex. Not only this, this period cannot be said to be a long period of leave on medical grounds. Further more, reasons given in the order dated 3.7.2001 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the application (Annex. 5) of the petitioner for grant of subsistence allowance was rejected cannot be said to be just and proper. 8. The other striking feature of the case is that through order dated 14.8.2001 (Annex. 11) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh) the petitioner was ordered to be given subsistence allowance for the period w.e.f. 13.6.2001 as per Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 9. The another striking feature of the case is that in spite of this Order dated 14.8.2001 (Annex. 11) passed by respondent No. 2 (Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh), the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance, and who Is responsible for that, action should be taken against that person. 10. The another striking feature of the case is that the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 23.3.2002 (Annex. 15) in which he has clearly .stated that as per provisions of Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the petitioner was entitled to the subsistence allowance, but for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, he was not paid subsistence allowance. 11. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the Medical & Fitness Certificate were not in the prescribed proforma, therefore, he was not allowed to resume duty on 12.6.2001 is not based on any foundation. When the suspension order was served on the petitioner on 13.6.2001, it was bounded duty of the respondents to allow the petitioner to mark attendance and thereafter he should have been paid subsistence allowance. The grounds for refusing subsistence allowance to the petitioner as well reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents cannot be sustained. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Rule 83 of Rajasthan Service Rules. The Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 has no relevancy where a person is suspended and after suspension if the person comes to resume the duties, then the position is different one. In the present case, on 13.6.2001, the suspension order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. The Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 has no relevancy where a person is suspended and after suspension if the person comes to resume the duties, then the position is different one. In the present case, on 13.6.2001, the suspension order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. 2) was served on the petitioner and when it was served on the petitioner, the respondents were under obligation to allow the petitioner to mark attendance.From this point of view also, the case of the respondents is not to be accepted and is liable to be rejected out-rightly. 13. It is further observed that so far as applicability of Rule 83 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is concerned, that pertains to resumption of duty, but that did not relate to the person who before resumption of duty had been put under suspension and validity of medical certificates would be seen at the time of enquiry, meaning thereby that so far as question of granting subsistence allowance to the petitioner is concerned, that became due as soon as the suspension order dated 4.6.2001 (Annex. 2) was served on the petitioner and he himself reported for duty in the office. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2806 has observed that payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with Rules to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. It is a right and an employee is entitled to be paid subsistence allowance. Hence, claiming of subsistence allowance is a right of an employee and refusal of it amounts to violation of a legal right of the petitioner for which leave can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1971 SLR (SC) 239 has held that if subsistence allowance was not paid to an employee and because of that he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and ex parte order was passed against that employee, the ex parte order was illegal, meaning thereby that during the period of suspension, an employee is entitled to subsistence allowance as matter of right and the employer is bound to give subsistence allowance. 16. 16. For the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance w.e.f. 13.6.2001 and for that respondents themselves had ordered through order dated 14.8.2001 (Annex. 11) and the order dated 23.3.2001 (Annex. 15). However, despite this, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance and therefore, it is a case which requires probe by the Registrar (Vigilance) as to in what circumstances, in spite of the orders, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. Apart from this, this Court through Order dated 29.4.2003 sought the report on the point that whether the subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner or not and a report has been submitted on 13.5.2003 by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh (respondent No. 2). However, that report dated 13.5.2003 pertains to the proceedings of the Enquiry,but in that report dated 13.5.2003, no where it has been mentioned whether subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner or not. 17. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance with effect from 13.6.2001. Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed in the following manner; (i) The respondent No.2 (Special Judge, (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh) is directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner w e.f. 13.6.2001 within a period of one month from today. (ii) The Registrar General (Vigilance), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur is directed to hold an enquiry to the effect as to in what circumstances the subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner in spite of orders dated 14.8.2001 (Annex. 11) and 23.3.2002 (Annex. 15) and who are responsible for not making payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner and the report be submitted to the concerned Authority. This enquiry may be completed within a period of three months from today. A copy of this Order be sent to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. No order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed as above. *******