ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This petition, is directed against the order dated 4-6-79 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (IV), Lucknow, dismissing a claim petition filed by the petitioner, a dismissed Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department. The claim put forward by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that in view of the order passed by the Court dated 18-3-75 quashing the order of dismissal passed against him on 30-11-72 he was entitled to be reinstated and paid full salary from the date of suspension. This claim was resisted by the Public Works Department through its Chief Engineer. Subsequently while the present petition was pending. In this Court, the petitioner was against dismissed from service by an order dated 27-6-79 which was also sought to be brought under challenge by means of an amendment application which has not yet been allowed. 2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department from which he was dismissed on 24-5-67. That order was unsuccessfully challenged by him by way of a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 30th of November, 1972. Against that order he filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1973 which as stated above was allowed by this Court, by its judgment dated 18th of March. 1975. This Court found that the Department had not followed the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India in that vital documents relied on by the Department Were not supplied to the petitioner. 3. It appears that matters were allowed to rest there and no further action was taken for almost two and a half years whereupon the petitioner was constrained to file a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal In this claim petition, he prayed for the relief of reinstatement as well as payment of full salary from the date of suspension in view of the order passed by this Court quashing the dismissal order. 4. Sri S.N. Jaiswal. learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, contended that after the High Court had quashed the original order of dismissal dated 24-5-67, the department was bound to reinstate the petitioner and pay the arrears of his salary as well as future salary. The Tribunal was hence clearly wrong in dismissing his claim. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, contended that after the High Court had quashed the original order of dismissal dated 24-5-67, the department was bound to reinstate the petitioner and pay the arrears of his salary as well as future salary. The Tribunal was hence clearly wrong in dismissing his claim. 5. I am unable to agree. It is not disputed that on 16-7-77 the Chief Engineer passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 1-2-65, the date of original suspension, with a view to holding further inquiry by giving to the petitioner the opportunity which was found by this Court to have been denied to him on the earlier occasion. In view of this order it is apparent that the petitioner could not be reinstated so long as that inquiry did not end in his favour. It is incontestable that if an order of dismissal or removal is quashed or set aside on a technical ground, such as in the present case, it is open to the authorities, unless the order setting aside the dismissal or removal expressly bars such an inquiry, to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law for the purpose of giving the opportunity he was previously denied. 6. In this view the claim for reinstatement was rightly disallowed by the Tribunal as at that time the enquiry against the petitioner was still pending. 7. 6. In this view the claim for reinstatement was rightly disallowed by the Tribunal as at that time the enquiry against the petitioner was still pending. 7. Coming to the claim of the petitioner for full salary, in my opinion the same cannot (Sic) in view of sub-clause (4)(a) of R. 49A of the U.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 provides : "(4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed, whether the allegations remain in their original form or are clarified or their particulars better specified or any part thereof a minor nature omitted : (a) if he was under suspension immediately before the penalty was awarded to him the order of his suspension shall, subject to any directions of the appointing authority, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal.". 8. It provides that where after an order of dismissal or removal is set aside by a court of law and the appointing authority decides to hold a further inquiry on the same allegations, if the person proceeded against was under suspension immediately before the penalty was imposed on him, the order of suspension shall, unless the appointing authority directs otherwise, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of original order of dismissal or removal. 9. In the present case the appointing authority while deciding to hold a fresh inquiry had not issued any direction to the contrary. Therefore the order of suspension passed against the petitioner would be deemed to have continued. Consequently the petitioner could claim only subsistence allowance and not full salary. 10. I, therefore, find no illegality, manifest or otherwise, in the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. Coming to the order of dismissal passed in year 1979. I find that the petitioner has sought to bring that order under challenge in this petition by supplying for amendment as late as on 7-1-88. The application is highly belated and deserves to be refused on that ground alone. 11. Coming to the order of dismissal passed in year 1979. I find that the petitioner has sought to bring that order under challenge in this petition by supplying for amendment as late as on 7-1-88. The application is highly belated and deserves to be refused on that ground alone. Moreover, admittedly the petitioner is already pursuing an alternative remedy by way of an appeal which is pending before the appropriate authority. The amendment application is, therefore, rejected. 12. The petitioner is, however, justified in his complaint that though he had filed the appeal against the order of dismissal in the year 1979, the same has not yet been disposed of despite several reminders sent by him in writing in that behalf. If this is so, it is regrettable that the appeal should have been allowed to remain in the cold storage for such a long time. The petitioner is agitating against the disciplinary action taken against him right from 1967. More than two decades have already passed. It is time that the authority before which the appeal may be pending, appreciated the plight of the petitioner and disposed of the appeal without the loss of any further time. 13. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. The Secretary to the Department of Public Works, Government of Uttar Pradesh, is, however, directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within two months from the date on which the certified copy of the case filed before him, unless the appeal has already been disposed of in which case the petitioner may be supplied, upon being requested in that behalf in writing, with a copy of the order at the earliest. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 14. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within a week.