Contentions Raised: It was contended by the additional Advocate General narmada mam appearing for the appellants that the appellant was excluded from the scope of “employee” in terms of section 2 of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.

Contentions Raised:
It was contended by the Advocate General appearing for the appellants that the appellant was excluded from the scope of “employee” in terms of section 2 of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.
It was further contended by the Appellants that according to the By-law No.31(2) of the Special By-laws relating to the service conditions of the Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society Limited, of which the respondent/petitioner was stated to have been the Secretary at the time when the incident occurred, fell within the definition of “officer”.
Moreover, the payment of subsistence allowance only applied to employees and excluded anybody employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, it was averred by the Appellants.
The Appellants further contended that the Respondent in its writ petition before the Single Judge had wrongly averred that Regulation 29(d)(i) of the Tamil
Nadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks Common Cadre Service Regulations, 2000 (for brevity, “the 2000 Regulations”) promulgated by the State Government under G.O.Ms.55, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 24.3.2000, would govern the field of payment of subsistence
Allowance as the applicability of the said government order was only in respect
of a cadre employee as defined in Regulation 29(d)(i) of the 2000 Regulations.
Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Respondent could not be excluded from the payment of subsistence allowance following the principle of Article 21 of the Constitution.

You may also like...