Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) ALTHOUGH , this writ petition has come upon application for early listing but after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the petitioner is challenging the validity of the suspension order dt. 18.05.2010 passed by the respondent No. 3. There is no stay operating in this writ petition. The petitioner is under suspension but according to learned counsel for the petitioner, he is not getting any subsistence allowance, so also, salary for the period in which he was in service and later on placed under suspension. Therefore, at least the respondents may be directed to pay the due salary of the petitioner so also subsistence allowance and for revoking the suspension order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that suspension is not punishment and it is always upon for the employer to place an employee under suspension in the event of contemplation of any departmental enquiry. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly the suspension order passed passed on 18.05.2010 and nearby three years have passed, therefore, a liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to file representation for revocation of the suspension order before the respondents and upon filing the said representation within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner for the purpose of revocation of the suspension order within a period of one month thereafter and pass appropriate order for the purpose of payment of his dues. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.;