JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, J. 1. Petitioner was an employee of the respondent bank. He was placed under suspension on 24-12-1980 on account of certain alleged misconduct. After an enquiry, his services were terminated by order dated 19-11-1981. That order was quashed by this Court by judgment dated 25-5-1988. Thereafter, he was again suspended from service as per order dated 2-8-1988 with effect from 19-11-1981, the date on which he was removed from service. Thereafter, he was not paid subsistence allowance. So, he approached this Court by filing O. P. 3670/1989. Respondent bank agreed to pay the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner as per rules. Thereupon the Original Petitioner has been dismissed as having become infructuous. Petitioner was paid subsistence allowance till 31-3-1989. After an enquiry into the alleged misconduct, petitioner was removed from service by order dated 19-6-1990. That order is under challenge in O. P. 11466/1990. Salary of members of the staff of the bank was revised with effect from 1-11-1987. Petitioner wanted the subsistence allowance to be revised on the basis of the revised scale of pay. For that purpose, he moved this Court by filing O. P. 9932/1990. This Court, by Exhibit P1 judgment, directed the bank to dispose of petitioner's representations within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In compliance with that order, bank passed Exhibit P7 order holding that petitioner is not entitled to have the subsistence allowance revised on the basis of the new scales of pay, which came into force with effect from 1-11-1987. Hence this Original Petition. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the bank, contending that petitioner is not entitled to have the subsistence allowance revised on the basis of the new scales of pay, which came into force with effect from 1-11-1987. 3. Respondent bank has promulgated rules in exercise of the powers under S.19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 for dealing with the discipline and appeal of its employees. That rule is known as "New Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982". R.12 of the Rules deal with suspension of employees. Clause (4) of that Rule is relevant for the instant Case. That rule is known as "New Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982". R.12 of the Rules deal with suspension of employees. Clause (4) of that Rule is relevant for the instant Case. It is in the following terms: - "Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an officer employee under suspension is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law, and the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the officer employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the competent authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders". Payment of subsistence allowance is governed by R.14 of the above Rules. As per that Rule, an officer under suspension shall be entitled to receive payment from the bank by way of subsistence allowance in the scale fixed therein. Clause (a) states that the subsistence allowance for the first three months of suspension is 1/3 of the basic pay which the officer employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension. For the subsequent period, after three months from the date of suspension. 1/2 of the basic pay is to be paid as subsistence allowance. If the enquiry is held by an outside agency, then subsistence allowance is to be paid at the rate of 1/3 of the basic pay for the next three months and 1/2 of the basic pay for the remaining period of suspension. From this provision, it is evident that subsistence allowance is to be computed on the basis of the basic pay. The basic pay is that which the officer was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension. So, after the period of suspension if there is any change in the basic pay, that change is not to be taken note of for payment of the subsistence allowance because subsistence allowance can be paid on the basis of the basic pay which the employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension only. So, after the period of suspension if there is any change in the basic pay, that change is not to be taken note of for payment of the subsistence allowance because subsistence allowance can be paid on the basis of the basic pay which the employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension only. In the instant case, petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 19-11-1981. Subsistence allowance on the basis of the basic pay, to which the petitioner was entitled to, was already paid. Petitioner wants to have the subsistence allowance recomputed on the basis of the enhancement in the scale of pay, which came into force with effect from 1-11-1987. Since the petitioner's suspension is with effect from 19-11-1981, the subsistence allowance must be computed on the basis of the basic pay due to him immediately prior to the date of suspension. He is not entitled to have the subsistence allowance varied on account of the subsequent enhancement in the scales of pay to the officers of the bank, which came into force with effect from 1-11-1987. 4. In view of the specific provisions contained in the New Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, petitioner is not entitled to subsistence allowance on the basis of the enhanced scale of pay, which came into force with effect from 1-11-1987. Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.