Murari Mohan Dutt, J. - (1.) In this appeal the appellants, the High Court at Calcutta and others have challenged the propriety of the interim order of the learned Trial Judge directing the appellants to pay the full salary of the respondent Nazla Rob, a Subordinate Judge of the 2nd Court at Nadia.
(2.) It appears that the Respondent No. 1 was suspended by the High Court and in the order of suspension it was directed that during the period of his suspension he would draw subsistence allowance at the rate of half the pay admissible to him on the day proceeding to the date of his suspension. The learned Judge by the interim order directed the appellants to pay full salary to the Respondent No. 1 during the period of his suspension.
(3.) It appears that there is no rule with regard to what should be the subsistence allowance in case of suspension of a Judicial Officer. Rule 71 of the West Bengal Service Rule, Part I, in our opinion, has no application because the suspension contemplated by that rule has to be made under section 7 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, which, however, has no application to the members of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service and the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) as provided in clause (v) of Rule 2 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. No other rule has been placed on behalf of the appellants in support of the direction that the Respondent No. 1 will be paid half the pay during the period of suspension. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to his full pay and allowances admissible under the law during the period of suspension. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in making the interim order. The application is disposed of as above. This order virtually disposes of the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, treated as on day's list and is disposed of on the basis of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Sarkar, J. - I agree.;