Heard Mr. H. Iswarlal, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Jalal Uddin, learned GA for the respondents. 2. The following brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitioner will be required for effective decision of this writ petition. 3. The petitioner's husband, Shri M. Basanta Singh was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Manipur and later on he was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster vide order No.4/01/82-SE(S) dated 12/11/1974 issued by the Commissioner, Education(S) to the Government of Manipur. While he was working as Assistant Headmaster of the School he was given the charge of D.I. Schools in the office of the Zonal Education Officer, Kangpokpi. A criminal case being FIR No.40(12)(99) VPS u/s 471/468/420/409/120-IPC & 13(1)©(d) PC Act against four persons including the petitioner's husband Shri M. Basanta Singh was registered. Because of the allegation for irregular withdrawal and fake appointment in the Department of Education(S), Govt. of Manipur against the petitioner's husband, Shri M. Basanta Singh, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of power conferred by Sub. Rule(1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 issued order being No. 30/10/2000/SE(S), Imphal the 14th June, 2000 for placing the petitioner's husband under suspension with immediate effect. While the petitioner's husband was under suspension, he died on 18/2/2004 due to illness. The Registrar, Birth & Death CHC, Sekmai issued death Certificate of Shri M. Basanta Singh under registration No.6/04 dated 18/3/2004. 4. The officer-in-charge Vigilance PS had submitted charge sheet being No. 10/2003 VPS dated 30/8/2003 (reference : FIR No.40(12)(99) VPS u/s 471/468/420/409/120-IPC & 13(1)©(d) PC Act in the Court of Learned Special Judge, Manipur East and subsequently initiated a special Trial No. 1/2004 against the petitioner's husband. On the death of the petitioner's husband, while the said Special Trial No.1/2004 was pending, the Special Judge, passed an order dated 5/6/2004 that the case against the petitioner's husband late, M. Basanta Singh has been closed. The Governor of Manipur issued order being No.33/3/99-SE(S) Pt. Imphal the 7/12/2002 for allowing the petitioner's husband to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 31/12/2001. On the death of the petitioner's husband, while the said Special Trial No.1/2004 was pending, the Special Judge, passed an order dated 5/6/2004 that the case against the petitioner's husband late, M. Basanta Singh has been closed. The Governor of Manipur issued order being No.33/3/99-SE(S) Pt. Imphal the 7/12/2002 for allowing the petitioner's husband to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 31/12/2001. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 21/8/2004 (Annexure-A/9 to the writ petition) to the Commissioner of Education(S), .Government of Manipur for revoking the suspension order No. 30/12/0/2000-SE(S) dated 14/6/2000, as her husband had died on 18/2/2004 and he had been allowed to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 31/12/2001 under the said order of the Governor of Manipur dated 7/12/2002 but no action was taken in pursuance of the said representation dated 21/8/2004. Hence the writ petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the said suspension order dated 14/6/2004 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition) and for a direction to treat the period of suspension of her husband from 14/6/2000 to 31/12/2001 as on duty and also for a direction to pay full pay for the said period. 5. It is an admitted fact of both the petitioner and respondents that the petitioner's husband who was under suspension died before the Disciplinary or Court Proceeding instituted against him are concluded. FR 54-B(2) reads as follows : “FR 54-B(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or the court proceedings against are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid.” 6. It is well settled principles of law under the service jurisprudence that the employee under suspension once permitted by the competent authority to retire without any objection, the earlier order of suspension has necessarily to be treated as having lapsed. In the present case also, the petitioner's husband had been allowed to retire by the Government of Manipur by issuing order dated 7/12/2002 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) w.e.f. 31/12/2001 on superannuation and, therefore, the suspension order dated 14/6/2000 automatically stands revoked. In the present case also, the petitioner's husband had been allowed to retire by the Government of Manipur by issuing order dated 7/12/2002 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) w.e.f. 31/12/2001 on superannuation and, therefore, the suspension order dated 14/6/2000 automatically stands revoked. After the petitioner's husband attained the age of superannuation the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner's husband and the respondents ceased to exist. By conjoined application of the said Principles of Law under Service Jurisprudence mentioned above and FR 54-B(2) of the Fundamental .Rules, it is clear that during the period between 14/6/2000 to 31/12/2001, the petitioner's husband shall be treated as on duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowance for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned suspension order dated 14/5/2000 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition) is quashed and period between the date of suspension i.e. 14/6/2000 and the date of his retirement on superannuation w.e.f. 31/12/2001 shall be treated as on duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period subject to adjustment in respect of the subsistence allowance already paid. The present writ petition is allowed to the extent above mentioned above. No order as to costs.