Judgment :- The petitioner is working as a Village Administrative Officer of Emur Village. He was also incharge of Puliyur Village. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 2.7.2009 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, the third respondent. In the suspension order, it is stated that the petitioner was caught in a trap case for having demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.1,500/-from one resident of Puliyur Village for granting transfer of patta in her name. 2. The petitioner sent a representation. Thanks to the indulgence shown by the State Government. The Joint Secretary to the Government by a letter dated 4.11.2009 recommended reviewing the suspension order taking into account the family circumstances of the petitioner and on humanitarian grounds subject to certain conditions. Even the place where the petitioner should be posted subsequent to the revocation of the order also is indicated. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government, the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer revoked the order of suspension by his proceedings dated 19.1.2010. 3. The conditions imposed in the said order were that the revocation of the order of suspension is subject to the result of the judicial proceedings pending against him. The petitioner will not get any equitable right over the said order. The petitioner should agree subject to the outcome of the case pending final decision in the court and also to the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is also indicated in the said order that the payment for the period from 1.7.2009 till the date of his joining duty will be regularised subject to the outcome of the case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner should thank himself for getting such a discretionary relief from the respondents. But, however, he has come forward to challenge the earlier suspension order (which no longer survive). In the light of the order dated 19.1.2010, he seeks for regularizing the period of suspension as duty with all attendant benefits. 4. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent. If the person is suspended and subsequently revoked without prejudice to the pendency of the proceedings in the court, any regularization or payment of the balance amount will be governed by F.R.53 and F.R.54. 4. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent. If the person is suspended and subsequently revoked without prejudice to the pendency of the proceedings in the court, any regularization or payment of the balance amount will be governed by F.R.53 and F.R.54. The question of the petitioner seeking such a direction from this Court even before the conclusion of the proceedings against him cannot be countenanced by this Court. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.