R.S. MONGIA, CJ. — The brief facts of the case are that respondent Shri B. Changthuama who was working as Deputy Manager (Legal), Food Corporation of India, Aizawl was placed under suspension by Zonal Manager (East), Calcutta vide order dated 18.8.1987. Dehors of any further details it may be observed here that vide order dated 30.12.1992 respondent herein was reinstated in service by revoking the suspension order. The said order reads as under :- "Whereas Sh. Changthuama, Deputy Manager (G) Food Corporation of India, Aizawl, Mizoram was placed under suspension by Zonal Manager (East), Calcutta vide order No. Vig.4(6)/87 dated 18th August, 1987 fixing his Headquarters at Regional Office, Guwahati. Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred by sub-regulation 5(c) of Regulation 66 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby revokes the said suspension with immediate effect without prejudice to the departmental/Court proceedings pending against him. Pending issue of orders of his posting, Sh. Changthuama will report for duty to Zonal Manager (NE), Gauhati immediately. Orders regarding regularisation of the suspension period will be issued in due course." The respondent herein filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Rule No. 39367 93. The prayer made in the writ petition was as follows :- "In the premises aforesaid it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records, issue a rule, calling upon the respondents why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the respondents to pay the petitioner's enhanced subsistence allowance during the petitioner's suspension period i.e. from 13.9.87 to 24.5.93 and upon hearing the cause or causes as may be shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute and/or be pleased to pass such further and/or other order or orders as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper." The writ petitioner's case was that pursuant to the order dated 30.12.1992 revoking the suspension the respondent-writ petitioner reported for duty on 24th May, 1993. It was pleaded in the writ petition that during the suspension period the petitioner was paid only 50% of his salary despite making requests for enhancement of the subsistence allowance. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.6.97. It was pleaded in the writ petition that during the suspension period the petitioner was paid only 50% of his salary despite making requests for enhancement of the subsistence allowance. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.6.97. The concluding portion of the judgment reads as under :- "I have heard Smt B. Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner. As the petitioner has been reinstated In the service and as no disciplinary proceeding has been pending against him, so the petitioner is entitled to all the service benefits for the above period and the authority is directed to pass the consequential order and pay the money due to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and produce the same before the appropriate authority to do the needful in terms of this order. Writ is disposed of." Against the aforesaid judgment and order the respondents in the writ petition now appellants had filed a Review Application No. 131 of 1997 which was dismissed on 4.12.2000. Hence the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the suspension was revoked and the writ petitioner now respondent was reinstated subject to the departmental proceedings/Court proceedings against him. Criminal case is still pending against the writ petitioner (now respondent) in the Court. The writ petitioner had been involved in a criminal case along with some other persons for which reason he had been placed under suspension. However pursuant to the order passed in earlier case filed by the petitioner he was reinstated. As per the regulations applicable to the FCI employees the question arises that on reinstatement to what pay during the suspension period the employee is entitled and how that period is to be treated? This is to be decided by the competent authority as and when the cause of suspension comes to an end. In the present case cause of suspension of the petitioner has not come to an end, inasmuch as the criminal case is still pending. This is to be decided by the competent authority as and when the cause of suspension comes to an end. In the present case cause of suspension of the petitioner has not come to an end, inasmuch as the criminal case is still pending. Learned counsel for the appellants however submitted that it cannot be disputed that the authorities have to decide, in-accordance with the regulations as to whether during the period of suspension the enhancement in the subsistence allowance is to be allowed or not for which speaking order has to be passed. 3. After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the view that there cannot be any exception to the argument of the counsel for the appellant that it is only after the enquiry etc. or the criminal case comes to an end, on account of which the writ petitioner was placed under suspension the question of payment of the salary etc. to the writ petitioner during the period of suspension or how that period is to be treated can be decided. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that as and when criminal case is disposed of against the writ petitioner (now respondent) this exercise would be undertaken by the department. However, she submitted that the writ petitioner-respondent would not be entitled to entire salary during the period of suspension till the matter is decided by the competent authority after the disposal of the criminal case against the petitioner. However the case regarding the enhancement of the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension has to be considered, as observed above, in-accordance with the regulations. 5. For the forgoing reasons we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that for the time being the petitioner would not be entitled to the entire salary/pay during the period of suspension. This matter would be decided after the criminal case pending against the petitioner comes to an end. ii) The appellant should decide as to what enhancement in the subsistence allowance the petitioner was entitled to during the period of suspension. For this purpose a speaking order would be passed. iii) The writ petitioner now respondent would be entitled to the subsistance allowance including the enhancement that may be ordered as per the aforesaid directions. ii) The appellant should decide as to what enhancement in the subsistence allowance the petitioner was entitled to during the period of suspension. For this purpose a speaking order would be passed. iii) The writ petitioner now respondent would be entitled to the subsistance allowance including the enhancement that may be ordered as per the aforesaid directions. If full salary has already been paid to the writ petitioner respondent for the period of suspension the over payment may be adjusted in reasonable instalments from the future pay of the respondent-writ petitioner. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.