P. O. DESAI, C. J. ( 1 ) - This appeal is directed against the following judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court on January 31, 1989. "this Writ application is directed against the order of suspension being Annexure 'a' to the writ application. On a careful scrutiny of the order of suspension, it appears that the petitioners were placed under suspension with retrospective effect which is not permissible under law. That being the position, the order of suspension with retrospective effect cannot be sustained and is set aside Respondents will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders with effect from the date of the order of passing the order of suspension in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be paid the service benefits for the period they have not been paid. This application is thus dispossed of without any order as to costs". ( 2 ) THE facts, briefly stated, are that on Decem6er 17, 1988, respondents No. 1 to 7, hereinafter called the Writ petitioners, were arrested in Criminal Case being G. R. case No. 1252 of 1988 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 to 10 of West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competition Act, 1957. They were produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, on December 17, 1988. An application for bail presented on the said day was rejected and they were remanded to Jail custody upto January 2, 1989 Feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting the bail application the Writ petitioners preferred an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge, District Midnapore on or about December 23, 1988 and they were discharged on Bail. By an order passed on December 24, 1988 the Writ Petitioners were treated as having been placed under suspension with effect from December 17, 1988, i. e. the day on which they were arrested and detained in custody and they were directed to remain under suspension till further orders. The order of suspension recited that in view of Regulation-6 (ii) of Calcutta Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1987, the Writ Petitioners were deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of detention. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid order of suspension was challenged by the Writ Petitioners in the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid order of suspension was challenged by the Writ Petitioners in the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises. The Writ Petition was allowed by the order above quoted and, hence, the present appeal. ( 4 ) REGULATION 6 (ii) of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees (Classification, Central and Appeal) Regulation, 1987 reads as follows: - (II), An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours, shall be deemed to have been suspended by an order of the appropriate authority with effect from the date of detention and shall remain under suspension, until further orders". ( 5 ) A bare reading of the Regulation in question shows that an employee who is detained in Custody on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period of more than forty-eight hours shall be deemed to hove been suspended with effect from the date of detention and that he shall remain under suspension until further orders. The suspension takes place under the circumstances mentioned in the above quoted Regulation by the operation of a statutory rule which by creating a fiction gives thereto a retrospective effect, that is, such an order is made operative with effect from the date of detention. The ordinary principle of service law that suspension cannot be effected retrospectively is displaced or superseded by the enactment and operation of this statutory rule in a fact-situation in which it is attracted. ( 6 ) THERE was thus ample justification, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for placing the, Writ Petitioners under suspension on and with effect from December 17, 1988, that is, the date of their detention in custody on a criminal charge, since such detention had ultimately exceeded forty-eight hours The Trial Court, with respect, fell into an error in overlooking and/or full to appreciate the true effect of the statuary provision in question and its applicability in the present case and in holding that since the Writ Petitioner-s were placed under suspension with retrospective effect the impugned order of suspension was not valid. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The decision of the Trial Court under appea1 is set aside. Susanta Chatterji, J. , I agree. Appeal allowed.