Judgment : D.K. Deshmukh, J. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the original petitioner -Tukaram was in the service of the respondent Corporation. He was appointed on 18th November 1962. Because he was being prosecuted in a criminal court, he was placed under suspension on 16th November 1977. He continued to be under suspension till he was reinstated in service on 7th June 1984. On 25th February 1988, the original petitioner applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 1st June, 1988. By a communication dated 30th May 1988, the petitioner was informed by the Corporation that in terms of his letter dated 25th August 1988, he is permitted to retire from the service of the Corporation with effect from 1st June 1988. Thereafter by a letter dated 20th April 1989, the petitioner was informed that though his request for voluntary retirement has been accepted, he cannot be permitted to voluntarily retire with effect from 1st June 1988 because he has not completed 20 years of qualifying service for pension and, therefore, his letter of retirement is treated as resignation. The petitioner made a representation against that before the Corporation. On that he was informed that according to the Corporation, he has not completed 20 years of service with the Corporation because the period during which he was under suspension is not taken into consideration for calculating the period of duty or service for the purpose of retirement and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by this petition for a direction to the Corporation to pay to the original petitioner the pension in accordance with the rules. 3. Though the Corporation has been served, they have not cared to file any affidavit in reply. Really speaking, therefore, in the absence of any affidavit in reply, the averments in the petition have to be accepted and on that basis the Rule in the petition can be made absolute. 4. What is further pertinent to be noted is that it is nobody's case that the services of the original petitioner were terminated at any point of time. He was merely placed under suspension because of the pending criminal prosecution. It implies that the petitioner continued in service till he was reinstated on 7th June 1984. 4. What is further pertinent to be noted is that it is nobody's case that the services of the original petitioner were terminated at any point of time. He was merely placed under suspension because of the pending criminal prosecution. It implies that the petitioner continued in service till he was reinstated on 7th June 1984. Therefore, the period during which the petitioner was under suspension, he continued to be in service of the Corporation. What is further pertinent to be noted is that by a letter dated 3rd May 1995 the petitioner has been informed that the period from 16th November 1977, i.e. the date on which the petitioner was placed under suspension, till 10th July 1984 is treated as leave. If that period is treated as leave, it obviously means that the petitioner was in the service of the Corporation. If the petitioner was in the service of the Corporation during that period, obviously that period will have to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. In our opinion, therefore, the Corporation was not justified in saying that the petitioner had not, by 1st June 1988, completed 20 years of qualifying service for pension to his credit. 5. In the result, the petition will have to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Rule in the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The Corporation is also directed to pay costs of this petition to the petitioners. The costs are quantified at Rs.10,000/-.