JUDGMENT: The above Appeals are the cross Appeals arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 102 of 1992, they were therefore tagged together and therefore are being heard and disposed of together. 2] First Appeal No. 59 of 1993 takes exception to the decree in so far as the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the salary payable for the period 10.09.1987 to 12.12.1990 has been rejected, whereas First Appeal No. 342 of 1993 takes exception to the decree in so far as it allows the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the amount of provident fund and gratuity. 3] The factual matrix involved in the above Appeals can be stated thus: 4] The Special Civil Suit No. 102 of 1991 has been filed by the heirs of one Dinkar Chetule who was at the relevant time working as Secretary of the defendant Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The said Chetule on account of some alleged misconduct was placed under suspension vide Resolution dated 21st August 1987 passed by the defendant A.P.M.C. It was further resolved to initiate departmental enquiry against the said Chetule. Inquiry Officer was accordingly appointed for conducting the said enquiry. The said Chetule took exception to the said suspension order by filing revision application being No. 4 of 1987 before the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Amravati. The Divisional Joint Registrar on 16.09.87 granted stay of the operation of the said Resolution passed by the A. P. M. C. Against the said order dated 16.09.1987 of the Divisional Joint Registrar, the defendant A. P. M. C. filed a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 2032 of 1987. The said Writ Petition was ultimately decided on 24.11.1987. This Court continued the stay granted by the Divisional Joint Registrar and directed the Divisional Joint Director to hear and decide the said revision application No. 4 of 1987 within a period of one month. In consequence of the stay of the suspension which was operating in his favour by virtue of the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar the said Chetule rejoined duties on 30.11.1987. Thereafter on 23.12.1987 the Divisional Joint Registrar decided the revision application No. 4 of 1987 and ordered that the said Chetule would be deemed to be reinstated from 11.11.1987. In consequence of the stay of the suspension which was operating in his favour by virtue of the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar the said Chetule rejoined duties on 30.11.1987. Thereafter on 23.12.1987 the Divisional Joint Registrar decided the revision application No. 4 of 1987 and ordered that the said Chetule would be deemed to be reinstated from 11.11.1987. However the departmental enquiry in terms of the resolution passed by the A. P. M. C. was directed to be completed within a period of six months. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 08.03.1988 to the A. P. M. C. The said report was thereafter placed before the body of the A. P. M. C. on 09.04.1988. On the basis of the said enquiry report the said Chetule was issued a show cause notice against the proposed punishment. The said Chetule replied to the said show cause notice by his reply dated 06.08.1988. On 01.06.1988 A. P. M. C. resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal on the said Chetule in accordance with which the dismissal order came to be passed on 16.08.1988 in terms of the Resolution passed by the A. P. M. C. on 01.06.1988. The said order of dismissal was to take effect from 16.06.1988. 5] These are the relevant facts upto the stage of passing of the dismissal order against the said Chetule. 6] Aggrieved by the said dismissal order dated 15.06.1988 the said Chetule filed an appeal in terms of the remedy provided by the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act and sought the setting aside of the said dismissal order. The said appeal was heard by the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Amravati who by his order dated 23.12.1988 quashed the dismissal order and directed de novo enquiry on account of the fact that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the bias of the Enquiry Officer. The said appeal was heard by the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Amravati who by his order dated 23.12.1988 quashed the dismissal order and directed de novo enquiry on account of the fact that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the bias of the Enquiry Officer. Against the said order dated 23.12.1988 passed by the Divisional Joint Director the A. P. M. C. carried the matter in appeal before the competent authority of the State Government i.e. the Hon’ble Minister for State for Cooperation who rejected the appeal filed by the A. P. M. C. by order dated 12.10.1990, however the State Government ordered the institution of a fresh enquiry on the same set of charges by appointing another Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was directed to be completed within a period of three months. Pertinently the State Government clarified in the operative part of its order that there is no order, as to reinstatement of the said Chetule at the said stage. Thereafter in terms of the directions of the State Government for conducting de novo enquiry by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer, the A. P. M. C. on 16.10.1990 appointed Shri F. S. Popatiya Advocate to be Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the said Chetule. The said Enquiry Officer fixed the enquiry for filing of the Written Statement on 10.11.1990. It appears that the said Chetule thereafter on 21.11.1990 when the enquiry was fixed for hearing applied for adjournment for a month, on account of the copy of the same charge sheet being furnished to him. Time was accordingly granted to the said Chetule. On 29.11.1990 the said Chetule appeared with his Advocate and applied for adjournment which was granted till 04.12. 1990. There after on the intervening dates the said Chetule was unrepresented and ultimately the said Chetule expired on 12.12.1990. It would be pertinent to note that the State Government on two occasions had extended the time to complete the enquiry and as per the last extension granted time upto 30.04.1991. It was therefore prior to the expiry of the period granted by the State Government for completion of enquiry that the said Chetule had died. It would be pertinent to note that the State Government on two occasions had extended the time to complete the enquiry and as per the last extension granted time upto 30.04.1991. It was therefore prior to the expiry of the period granted by the State Government for completion of enquiry that the said Chetule had died. 7] The heirs of the said Chetule who are the wife and children have filed Special Civil Suit No. 102 of 1991 for recovery of arrears of pay, provident fund, gratuity and compensation and the total amount claimed was Rs. 2,45,100.25 Ps. The break up of the said amount was as follows: The details of the claim given by her are as under: Rs. 1,00,740.90 Ps. towards arrears of salary Rs. 20,927.40 Ps. towards provident fund Rs. 22,293.16 Ps. towards gratuity Rs. 1,138.70 Ps. towards arrears of salary Rs. 2,45,100.25 Ps. Total The defendant A. P. M. C. filed its Written Statement and denied the claim of the plaintiffs. It was the case of the defendant that in fact an amount of Rs. 34,732.16 Ps. was recoverable from the said Chetule and considering the said amount the amount which was payable to the said Chetule which it had calculated was in the sum of Rs. 44,359.35. According to defendant the total amount payable therefore was only Rs. 9627.19 Ps. i.e. Rs. 44359.35 minus the amount of Rs. 34,732.16 Ps. The defendant stated that the said amount would be paid to said Chetule after obtaining the necessary sanction of the higher authority i. e. the Director, Marketing Government of Maharashtra. In so far as the amount claimed for the period 10.09.1987 to 12.12.1990 the defendant denied its liability to pay the said amount in view of the fact that said Chetule having failed to turn up and attend the office of the defendant as per the order of suspension dated 10.09.1987. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the relevant issues. In the context of the challenge to the decree in the present appeal is concerned, issue no.2 framed by the Trial Court is relevant which was to the effect that: “Do plaintiffs prove the claim of Rs. 1,00,740.90 by way of salary of deceased Dinkar?” In the context of the challenge to the decree in First Appeal No. 342 of 1993, issue nos. 1,00,740.90 by way of salary of deceased Dinkar?” In the context of the challenge to the decree in First Appeal No. 342 of 1993, issue nos. 3, 3A are relevant which are to the effect that: 3. Do plaintiffs prove that the claim of Rs. 20,927/- by way of Provident Fund of deceased Dinkar? 3A.Do plaintiffs prove that Rs. 22,293.16 by way of gratuity? Issue no.2 was held against the plaintiffs. However, in so far as issue numbers 3 and 3A are concerned which are relevant to the companion appeal they were held to be proved against the appellant A. P. M. C. in the said appeal. 8] In so far as issue no.2 is concerned, the trial Court on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence recorded a finding that the said Chetule was paid for the period when he attended duties. The trial Court on the basis of the admission of the plaintiff no.1 i.e. the wife that on the passing of the order of the State for re-enquiry, her husband did not resume duties, rejected the said claim. In so far as the payment claimed on account of the provident fund and gratuity is concerned the trial Court in terms of the statement made in para 6 of the Written Statement of the defendant that an amount of Rs. 20,927.40 Ps. is to the credit of the account of the deceased and that an amount of Rs. 22,293.16 is payable towards gratuity and also Rs. 1138.70 towards arrears of salary has held the plaintiff entitled to the said amounts. In so far as the case of the defendant A. P. M. C. that an amount of Rs. 34,732.16 Ps. Was recoverable from the said Chetule, was concerned the trial Court in the absence of any evidence in support of the said fact being produced by the defendant did not accept the said case of the defendant and therefore ordered the payment on account of provident fund and gratuity and the amount of Rs. 1138.70 Ps. towards arrears of salary. 9] It is required to be noted that the Appellant No. 1 Manisha Chetule died on 08.05.2010 during the pendency of the above appeal but the appeal does not abate in view of the fact that other legal representatives who are the daughters of the said Chetule are already on record. 1138.70 Ps. towards arrears of salary. 9] It is required to be noted that the Appellant No. 1 Manisha Chetule died on 08.05.2010 during the pendency of the above appeal but the appeal does not abate in view of the fact that other legal representatives who are the daughters of the said Chetule are already on record. 10] I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the appellant it was sought to be contended by the learned counsel relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Hirabai Bhikanrao Deshmukh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1985 Maharashtra Law Journal 73, that the said Chetule would be entitled to the arrears of salary for the period from 10.09.1987 to 12.12.1990. In the said case the Division Bench has held that an employee covered by the Bombay Civil Services Rules dying prior to the completion of the departmental enquiry proceedings would be entitled to full pay and allowance for the period in question subject to the adjustment in respect of the subsistence allowance already paid. The said judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on the touchstone of Rule 152(B) Sub Rule 2 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The said judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on the touchstone of Rule 152(B) Sub Rule 2 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The said Rule posits that: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 151 where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary proceedings are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death has to be treated as duty for all purposes and the family of such civil servant is required to be paid full pay and allowances for that period subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid.” Though reliance was placed on the said judgment of the Division Bench the learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 59 of 1993 was not in a position to point out a similar or identical provision in the Rules or Regulations applicable to an employee working in the A. P. M. C. It appears that no such provision exists in so far as the employees working with the A. P. M. C. are concerned who are governed by the relevant Local Act and Regulations since the judgment in the case of Hirabai proceeded on the basis of Rule 152B Sub Rule (2) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, in my view the said judgment would not lend any assistance to the appellants to claim the said amount for the period 19.09.1987 to 12.12.1990. 11] The matter has to be looked at from another angle. It is significant to note that though the State Government had ordered de novo enquiry by directing the appointment of new Enquiry Officer, the State Government had in terms ordered that the reinstatement of the said Chetule was not granted. Hence in view of the order passed by the State Government and in the absence of any specific provision in the relevant Rules or Regulations applicable to the deceased Chetule, the appellants above named cannot be held to be entitled for any arrears of salary for the period 10.09.1987 to 12.12.1990. The minor discrepancies here and there in the evidence of the witnesses of the defendant A. P. M. C. would not entitle the appellants above named to claim said arrears of salary when the said right does not have any statutory backing in the absence of a provision similar to Rule 152B Sub Rule (2) of the B. C. S. R.. 12] It is also required to be noted that the said Chetule was kept under suspension by order dated 10.09.1987 and had resumed duties on 30.11.1987 and had thereafter worked upto 15.06.1988 when he was dismissed from service. Thereafter as indicated above the order of dismissal was confirmed by the State Government on 12.10.1990 and in which order though the de novo enquiry was ordered the said Chetule was specifically denied reinstatement. In my view, therefore, the said Chetule would have been entitled to subsistence allowance between the period 10.09.1987 to 30.11.1987 and from 23.12.1988 till his death on 12.12.1990 as that is the period which covers the period between the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar setting aside the dismissal order, and his death on 12.12.1990. The said Chetule would therefore in my view would be deemed to be under suspension in that period though no separate suspension order was passed probably in view of the order passed by the State Government refusing reinstatement. The said Chetule, I am informed, was drawing a salary of Rs. 2583/- and therefore, even considering that he was to be paid 50% of the salary as subsistence allowance for the period 10.09.1987 to 30.11.1987 and thereafter for the period between 23.12.1988 and 12.12.1990. In my view interest of justice would be served if the appellants are granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The said amount is granted in view of the fact that Shri Kaptan learned counsel for the A. P. M. C. very fairly stated that no subsistence allowance was paid. The ground being that the said Chetule was not attending the office though under suspension prior to his dismissal and thereafter though the dismissal order was set aside and denovo enquiry ordered, no suspension order was passed as the State Government refused reinstatement to the said Chetule. In my view the reasons mentioned by Shri Kaptan cannot deny the subsistence allowance to a delinquent who is facing enquiry. Hence taking an over all view of the matter the interest of justice would be served if a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- is paid to the appellants. First Appeal No. 59 of 1993 is therefore partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Hence taking an over all view of the matter the interest of justice would be served if a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- is paid to the appellants. First Appeal No. 59 of 1993 is therefore partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. Decree be drawn up accordingly. 13] In so far as First Appeal No. 342 of 1993 is concerned at the out set the learned counsel for the A. P. M. C. Shri Kaptan did not dispute the amount of Rs. 1138.79 Ps. Towards balance of salary, which has been decreed by the trial Court. In so far as the said First Appeal is concerned the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraphs 46, 47 and 66 are relevant and are reproduced hereunder: “46. Issue Nos. 3, 3A and 4: An amount of Rs. 20,927.40 Ps. is claimed towards the Provident Fund; whereas Rs. 22,293.16 Ps. By way of Gratuity and Rs. 1138.70 towards arrears of salary. 47. In para 6A of the Written Statement, it is admitted by the defendant that amount of Rs. 20,927.40 is at the credit of Provident Fund of the deceased. It is also admitted that Rs. 22,293.16 is payable towards gratuity and also Rs. 1138.70 as towards arrears of salary. As all these claims are admitted by the defendant, the plaintiff has proved the same in evidence. However, whether she is entitled to get it or otherwise is to be determined while discussing and determining issue no. 7. Those issues, therefore, at this stage are answered in the affirmative. 66. Even an opportunity was there for the present Secretary examined by the defendant at Exh. 49 to prove in evidence by producing concerned documents as to how there was shortage of stock materials on the date of taking over the charge by him from deceased Chetule. Not a single word is uttered by him as to how these amounts are to be recovered from deceased Chetule and are subject to deduction of the same from the amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. In my view, unless it is proved by the defendant A. P. M. C. that these amounts are to be recovered from deceased Chetule and the plaintiffs are liable to pay the same, here it cannot be held that the total of these amounts is liable to be deducted from the amount due to the plaintiff. In my view, unless it is proved by the defendant A. P. M. C. that these amounts are to be recovered from deceased Chetule and the plaintiffs are liable to pay the same, here it cannot be held that the total of these amounts is liable to be deducted from the amount due to the plaintiff. At the most in my view if at all for the sake of argument, the amount shown in para six-B are to be recovered legally from the present plaintiffs, the defendant may proceed against them independently. In my view, the alleged recoveries has no concern of accrual of cause of action for this suit as alleged by the plaintiff. Here amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity etc., are claimed by the heirs of the deceased under the substantive provisions of respective laws. Unless it is strictly proved in evidence that the dues are also liable to be recovered from these amounts by deducting the same while making payment to the heirs, it cannot be held that the defendants are entitled to do so.” In the light of the fact that there is no iota of evidence produced by the appellant A. P. M. C. to buttress its case that certain amounts were payable by the said Chetule; and in the light of the findings recorded in paragraphs 47 and 66 the decree in so far as the said amounts are concerned therefore does not merit any interference. The findings of the trial Court cannot be faulted with. First Appeal no. 342 of 1993 is accordingly dismissed.