RAJESH BALIA J.-, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. P. G. Desai learned counsel appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. ( 2 ) A short question has been raised in this petition. Applicant was suspended by the respondent corporation on 28. 6. 1984. The petitioner filed suit being RCS No. 1089/84 challenging the said suspension order and said order was stayed and the petitioner was directed to be taken on duty pending trial of the said suit. Revision against that order was dismissed by this Court on 25. 9. 1991 and the Court directed to implement the order dated 29. 9. 1984 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.) Baroda forthwith and in any case not later than two weeks from the date of order. The petitioner has made grievance in this petition that inspite of operation of suspension order-having been stayed on 28. 9. 1984 by the Civil Court and later on by this Court the respondents are not paying full emoluments but paying only subsistence allowance which is in direct contravention of the order passed by the Civil Courts. It has also been pointed out that after Civil Revision Application was dismissed on 25. 9 respondent by the order dated 20. 1. 1995 has fixed the petitioner at the lowest of the pay-scale applicable to the Drivers after he was reinstated on 30. 1. 1992. The order dated 20. 1. 1995 has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to full emoluments and not subsistance allowance for the entire period w. e. f. 29. 9 till today and he cannot be relegated to the minimum of pay-scale while he is continued in service uninterruptly and merely because respondents have implemented order of civil court only on 30. 1. 1992 after heaving failed in revision. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent stales that the petitioner is not entitled to anything more than the subsistance allowance prior to the judgment of the High Court dated 25. 9. 1991 and as the order of Civil Judge dated 29. 9. 1984 remained stayed during the pendency of civil revision before this court and therefore for all purposes suspension order dated 28. 6. 1984 remained in force untill the decision of Civil Revision Application on 25. 9. 9. 1991 and as the order of Civil Judge dated 29. 9. 1984 remained stayed during the pendency of civil revision before this court and therefore for all purposes suspension order dated 28. 6. 1984 remained in force untill the decision of Civil Revision Application on 25. 9. 1991 and the petitioner is only entitled to full wages and emoluments only w. e. f. 25. 9. 1991 when suspension order dated 28. 6. 1984 became finally inoperative. According to him period prior to 25. 9. 1991 will have to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority while passing orders in disciplinary proceedings which are pending before him. However he could not place justifiable cause for fixing the petitioner in a minimum pay-scale and for paying not as per the stage in which the petitioner was already continued in the pay-scale. ( 4 ) HAVING carefully considered the rival contentions of both the sides I am of the opinion that during pendency of civil suit when interim order is passed existence of order is not obliterated though its operation is suspended and order remains in suspended animus. Therefore it cannot be taken that the order of suspension stands revoked w. e. f. the date the order passed by Civil Court. In fact the order of civil court itself became operative after stay order passed by this Court stood vacated. Civil Revision Application came to be dismissed with a direction to implement the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on 29. 9. 1984. In fact suspension order still continues to exist as the same has been neither revoked by any disciplinary authority nor quashed by any competent authority but is in suspended animus on account of operation of the order of the Courts. That is to say the matter is sub-judice. In that view of the matter the fact of interim order passed in favour of the petitioner so far as status as suspended employee is concerned has become operative immediately w. e. f. the dale on which interim order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application stood vacated on dismissal thereof. Until then the order of trial court having been stayed the order of suspension remained operative. Until then the order of trial court having been stayed the order of suspension remained operative. Therefore the period up to the order passed by this court it will have to be treated during which petitioner remained under suspension and that period has to be dealt with by the disciplinary authority while passing appropriate order in the disciplinary proceedings. ( 5 ) HOWEVER once the suspension order became inoperative on 25. 9. 1991 and the status of the petitioner was restored as if on regular duly. It did not become a case of fresh employment but it is a case that he is to be treated as continued in service and his pay and salary will have to be dealt with only by treating him to be continued in service. Terms and conditions of service of an employee could not be altered to his disadvantage during the pendency of inquiry proceedings merely on that ground. That would be inflicting punishment prematurely and amount to illegal deduction on unsustainable ground. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY petition is partly allowed. Respondents are directed to pay full emoluments to the petitioner as if petitioner is discharging duty w. e. f. 25. 9. 1991 by treating him to be regularly employed in the regular pay-scale and giving him benefit of fixation as regular employee and not by confining fixation of pay at the minimum pay-scale. However it is also clarified that the payment of emoluments for the period up to 25. 9. 1991 shall be dealt with in accordance with result of the suit. Any amount which becomes payable to the petitioner as a result of this order shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. However this would not result in delay in payment of regular salary in time. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed. .