JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, Judge Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that non-petitioners be directed to increase the subsistence allowance along with interest as admissible w.e.f. 20.11.2004 to 28.8.2008 at the rate of 25% and w.e.f. 29.5.2008 to 26.2.2009 at the rate of 75%. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that on 6.12.1990 petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager and was posted in Branch office at Paonta Sahib. It is pleaded that petitioner was working against the regular post and thereafter he was involved in criminal case and FIR No. 193 dated 20.5.2004 was registered under Section 302 IPC. It is pleaded that petitioner was arrested on 20.5.2004 for the murder of his wife. It is further pleaded that petitioner was convicted by Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC. It is pleaded that petitioner was suspended on account of pendency of criminal case under Section 302 IPC and subsistence allowance was granted to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that petitioner was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of the total salary whereas petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% because suspension exceeded six months. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-petitioners pleaded therein that petitioner has no cause of action to file present civil writ petition. It is pleaded that petitioner was suspended because there were allegations against the petitioner that petitioner has burnt his wife Smt. Bimla Devi. It is pleaded that petitioner was paid subsistence allowance strictly in accordance with law at the rate of 50%. It is pleaded that review committee did not enhance the subsistence allowance to petitioner in view of allegations of moral turpitude and in view of the fact that petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the competent Criminal Court of law. Prayer for dismissal of civil writ petition sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- Point No.1 Whether civil writ petition filed by petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of civil writ petition? 5. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- Point No.1 Whether civil writ petition filed by petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of civil writ petition? Point No.2 Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was entitled to enhancement of subsistence allowance firstly w.e.f. 20.11.2004 to 28.5.2008 at the rate of 25% and secondly w.e.f. 29.5.2008 to 26.2.2009 at the rate of 75% as per CCS and CCA Rules is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that 50% subsistence allowance was granted to petitioner when petitioner was suspended because petitioner was arrested in criminal case punishable under Section 302 IPC for murder of his wife by way of burn injuries. As per Fundamental Rule 53 Government servant under suspension is entitled upto first three months of the period of suspension the subsistence allowance at an amount equal to leave salary which he would have drawn if he had been on leave on half pay. It is also well settled law that fixation of the quantum of subsistence allowance for the initial period of first three months is automatic. 7. Thereafter there is provision of first review after the expiry of three months from competent authority of law relating to enhancement of subsistence allowance of suspended employee. It is proved on record that on 25.5.2004 order was passed by Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Sector 19-A Madhya Marg Chandigarh qua suspension of petitioner w.e.f. date of detention i.e. 20.5.2004. It is also proved on record that on 7.3.2005 Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Sector 19-A Madhya Marg Chandigarh also passed the subsistence allownace order w.e.f. 20.5.2004. Subsistence allowance order dated 7.3.2005 is quoted in toto:- ORDER Shri Parat Singh Manager Branch Office Paonta Sahib who is under deemed suspension w.e.f. 20.5.2004 vide order of even no. dt. 25.5.2004 shall be entitled to the following payments w.e.f. the date of deemed suspension till further orders: (1) A subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant could have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in-addition Dearness Allowance if admissible on the basis of such leave salary. (2) Any other Compensary Allowance admissible from time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to fulfillment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances. (3) The payment under Items (1) & (2) above shall be made subject to production of a certificate (Specimen enclosed) to the effect that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. The recoveries to be made from the subsistence allowance shall be regulated in accordance with the Headquarters Office orders issued from to time. Sd/- (T.R.Gautam) Regional Director…… 8. It is proved on record that thereafter on 7.8.2008 Deputy Director (Vigilance) Employees State Insurance Corporation Panchdeep Bhawan CIG road New Delhi had issued order that committee relating to subsistence allowance on review of suspension cases decided not to enhance subsistence allowance from 50% which was initially granted to the petitioner and thereafter information was communicated to the petitioner through Superintendent Jail Model Central Jail Nahan H.P. 9. It is proved on record that petitioner was suspended on account of grave criminal offence committed by petitioner relating to murder of his wife. In view of the fact that there was no delay on part of non-petitioners in any manner and in view of the fact that non-petitioners did not delay the disposal of any inquiry proceeding and in view of the fact that delay occurred due to judicial proceedings pending before competent criminal Court it is not expedient in the ends of justice to enhance the subsistence allowance because delay was caused due to pendency of criminal case under Section 302 IPC before competent Court of law and delay was not caused due to the pendency of any departmental proceedings. In view of the fact that petitioner has committed criminal offence of moral turpitude and in view of the fact that allegations against the petitioner are grave and heinous in nature regarding murder of his wife and in view of the fact that petitioner stood convicted by competent criminal Court of law under Section 302 IPC and in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record in order to prove that conviction of petitioner under Section 302 IPC has been set aside by any competent Court of law as of today Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to enhance the subsistence allowance of the petitioner. It is well settled law that after conviction of employee by competent Court of law fundamental rights of convicted are suspended. Even in jail custody subsistence allowance is paid by jail authorities to jail inmates. Hence point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 10. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any for stands disposed of.