N. K. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the suspension order dated 17. 2. 2003 as contained in Annexure-4 and for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make the payment of the salary in the revised scale with all increments and dearness allowance with effect from 15. 3. 1996 to 31. 5. 2001, Increments, dearness allowance in revised scale from the date 14. 3. 1996 and 1. 6. 2001 to 30. 9. 2002, due revised salary, with increments, dearness allowances in revised scale with effect from 1. 10. 2000 to 30. 11. 2003 and further arrears of efficiency bar w. e. f. 1. 12. 2002 having crossed the efficiency bar. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was firstly suspended on 15. 3. 1996 on account of his involvement in a criminal case. This order was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original application No. 528 of 1997 on 2. 5. 2001. Later on, the petitioner was convicted in Sessions trial No. 785/96 vide judgment dated 19. 10. 2002. A Criminal Appeal No. 1461 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner. On 25. 10. 2002, the High Court has stayed the execution of the sentence along with the fine passed against the petitioner. Impugned order of suspension was passed on 17. 2. 2003 w. e. f. 19. 10. 2002 when the petitioner was detained in jail for a period exceeding 48 hours under the deeming provision in terms of Rule 10 (2) of the Central Civil Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. This suspension order has been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner has claimed the salary of that period during which his earlier suspension order remained quashed and he has also claimed the difference of revised pay scale, increments and the payment of the enhanced salary after crossing efficiency bar on the due date. This suspension order has been challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner has claimed the salary of that period during which his earlier suspension order remained quashed and he has also claimed the difference of revised pay scale, increments and the payment of the enhanced salary after crossing efficiency bar on the due date. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions ; firstly, that the authority who has passed the suspension order is not competent to pass the suspension order ; secondly, after the order of conviction and sentence being stayed by the High Court in criminal appeal and the detention period is over the impugned suspension order automatically stands revoked and ; thirdly, the suspension for a long period is illegal. ( 4 ) SO far as the first contention about the authority being incompetent is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party has filed a circular dated 10. 3. 1995, issued by the Ministry of communication, Government of India which goes to show that in the case of the petitioner, the divisional Engineer, Telecommunication is the appointing authority and the impugned suspension order has been passed by the Divisional Engineer. Therefore, this contention has no force. So far as the other two contentions are concerned, they are liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rqjeev Kumar, 2003 (3) SCCD 936 : 2003 (4) AWC 3020 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 516 , in which the Honble Supreme Court has overruled the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of education (Basic), U. P. , Lucknow, 1997 ALJ 963. It has been held by the Honble Supreme court that even after the expiry of the detention period the revocation of the suspension is not automatic. Further, it has been held that suspension for a very long period does not invalidate the suspension order but at the same time, it has been observed that the period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period that does not invalidate the suspension. Therefore, in this case, it is the authority who has to take the decision under "rule 10 (5) (c) of Central Civil Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. So far as the claim of salary is concerned, the petitioner has right to get his salary, if it is due under the Rules. Therefore, at the time of dismissal of the writ petition for the relief of quashing the suspension order, it is observed that the opposite parties shall consider the payment of the salary claimed in the writ petition, if it is found due under the Rules. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the opposite parties shall consider for the payment of dues of salary if any, admissible under the Rules, expeditiously. .