S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Kamal Trivedi waives service of rule. With consent of parties matter is finally heard today. ( 2 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the order of his suspension dated 21 The said order of suspension has continued on the date when the petition was filed. However the petitioner has retired from service on 31-12-91 on his reaching the superannuation age. The petitioner has superannuated on 31-12-91 and therefore now the question arises as to what relief should be granted in favour of the petitioner in this petition. ( 3 ) IT is in view of the fact that the petitioner has retired on 31-12-91 the question of continuance of his suspension does not arise. The order of suspension as such comes to an end on 31 Even otherwise I am of the opinion that there was no justification on the part of the respondent-Corporation in continuing the petitioner under suspension for his involvement in a criminal offence which was based on a private complaint filed by a private individual. In this case it is not shown to the Court as to how the respondent-Corporation is in any way affected by the alleged incident for which a criminal prosecution is continuing against the petitioner by a private person. By virtue of sub-Rule 2 (a) of Rule 5 of Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Employees (Control and Appeal) Rules 1984 the authority has exercised the power of suspension because the petitioner was kept under detention for a period of more than 48 hours. Once such power is exercised it is incumbent upon the authority to review the suspension especially when the suspension has continued for a period of more than 8 years which is I unreasonably long period and for the reasons stated by me in my judgment and order dated 10th February 1992 in Special Civil Application No. 8733 of 1991 I am of the opinion that the order of suspension against the petitioner was not at all justified and its continuance without periodical review was absolutely unreasonable. In that view of the matter the order of suspension is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. In that view of the matter the order of suspension is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. V. R. Lalaji on behalf of the respondents it is asserted that under the provisions of the relevant Service Rules of the respondent- Corporation the said deemed suspension would continue till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner unless the suspension order is modified or revoked by a specific order passed by the authority concerned. It is thus clear that the respondent-Corporation is conscious of the fact that it has power to modify or revoke the order of suspension. Ii is also aware of the fact that criminal prosecution is pending since 1984 and no progress is made therein. Admittedly it has not undertaken the exercise of modifying the said suspension order. It has even permitted the petitioner to superannuate on 31/12/1991. In that view of the matter it has failed to review the order of suspension by revoking the same and non-exercise of that power of such unreasonable long period of more than 9 years has resulted into depriving the petitioner of his right to serve the respondent-Corporation and to get his full salary. This Court is of the opinion that such order of suspension is not at all justified and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. However in view of the fact that the employee has now retired he is even permitted to superannuate on 3 1/12/1991 the question arises as to what order should be passed with regard to the period of suspension during which this employee has not been in a position to serve and to get his full salary. The second question would be as to whether the employee should get the other retrial benefits when the criminal prosecution is still pending against him. Mr. B. P. Jasani learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in this case despite pendency of criminal prosecution the respondent- Corporation has permitted the petitioner to retire from service therefore the respondent- Corporation cannot now withheld the retrial benefits on the ground that the petitioner was under suspension on the superannuation date namely 31/12/1991. Mr. B. P. Jasani learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in this case despite pendency of criminal prosecution the respondent- Corporation has permitted the petitioner to retire from service therefore the respondent- Corporation cannot now withheld the retrial benefits on the ground that the petitioner was under suspension on the superannuation date namely 31/12/1991. In his submission the respondent-Corporation is bound to treat the petitioner as on duty on 31/12/1991 and to regulate his terminal and other benefits on that basis. He further submits that once the petitioner has retired the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation has ceased to exist. In other words with the severance of the status of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent by virtue of the effective retirement of the petitioner with the consent of the respondent-Corporation the respondent shall have to give full benefits to the petitioner irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal prosecution is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial for the respondent- Corporation because it has on its own without any objection permitted the petitioner to retire on his reaching the superannuation age. In this case even otherwise the question of revoking the order of suspension will not arise. In this case even otherwise the question of revoking the order of suspension will not arise. As a matter of fact the respondent-Corporation has permitted the petitioner to retire and therefore the earlier order of suspension pending criminal prosecution is necessarily to be treated as having lapsed and it is no longer available for being regulated by the disciplinary authority or the respondent- Corporation Since the respondent- Corporation has not continued any control as it has severed the relationship of master and servant while permitting the petitioner to superannuate there is no other alternative left with the Corporation but to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty only The respondent-Corporation therefore shall have to pay to the petitioner full salary for the aforesaid period In identical fact situation the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. R. S. Naik reported in 1983 (3) Service Law Reporter page 285 directed the government to treat the period of suspension of the employee as on duty inasmuch as despite pendency of criminal prosecution the government has permitted the said employee to retire In my opinion the principle laid down by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court squarely applies to the aforesaid facts situation It may be noted that this is a peculiar case when the employee is permitted to retire while under suspension and while the criminal prosecution is pending against him Once he is permitted to retire the relationship of master and servant comes to an end Once the said relationship comes to an end he not only becomes entitle to all retrial benefits but he also becomes entitled to his full salary from the date he is suspended till the date of his retirement The period of his suspension cannot now be treated by the respondent-Corporation by reference to the future event of his conviction in criminal prosecution on the date of his retirement it is required to be determined as to how the period of suspension should be treated The Corporation cannot claim right in itself having permitted the petitioner to retire to decide the period of the suspension of the petitioner by reference to the outcome of criminal prosecution In fact the Corporation is now not at all concerned with the outcome of criminal prosecution The crucial date is the date of retirement on that day here was nothing against the employee nor was he convicted by criminal Court In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that the Corporation shall have also to pay full salary to the petitioner from the date of his suspension till the date of his retirement ( 5 ) IN the result the petition succeeds Rule is made absolute with the direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay to the petitioner the difference between the subsistence allowance and the actual salary within a period of 4 weeks from today The respondent-Corporation shall also pay to the petitioner the retrial benefits which are payable under their rules and regulations (NVA) Petition allowed .