JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions, petitioners were employees of the Police Department working on the post of Constable/Head Constable/ASI/Sub-Inspector. They have approached this Court assailing the order of the Government dated 11.5.09 by which the earlier order passed by the Government on 26.4.09 was withdrawn/revoked and the petitioners were again placed under suspension. Petitioners were placed under suspension on the ground that some disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against them or that certain criminal case has been registered against them. The common order was passed by the Government on 26.4.2009 reinstating all of them in service in view of the parliamentary elections especially because their services are required for election duties. When the elections were over, they were again suspended by order dated 11.5.09. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court. This Court was persuaded to stay operation of the subsequent order dated 11.5.09 which had the effect of revival of order dated 26.4.09 by which the suspension order earlier passed in case of each of the petitioners stood revoked. 2. Shri Mahendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the policy of the Government earlier envisaged in its circular dated 10.8.01 has since been revised by subsequent circular of the Department of the Personnel dated 7.7.2010 and the recourse of their earlier circular has somewhat been diluted. This has been done following the number of decisions of this Court where Court observed that since the sufficient long period has elapsed from the date of suspension and neither any disciplinary proceeding has been completed, nor even the challan has been filed and if filed, trial is taking too long, the Government re-considered the advisability the Government servant under suspension. 3. It is argued that in some of these cases, petitioners have already suffered the agony of suspension for as long as 5-8 years. Learned counsel has also argued that respondent department relied on the judgment of this Court in Prem Pr. Mathur v. State, (2005) 9 RDD 3962 (Raj.) and Vishnu Kr. Gupta v. State & Ors., 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 701 and Harvendra Singh v. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6337 of 2010 decided on 3.5.2010 . Learned counsel has also argued that respondent department relied on the judgment of this Court in Prem Pr. Mathur v. State, (2005) 9 RDD 3962 (Raj.) and Vishnu Kr. Gupta v. State & Ors., 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 701 and Harvendra Singh v. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6337 of 2010 decided on 3.5.2010 . In first of those judgments, taking note of the fact that more than four and half years have elapsed since the date of suspension and disciplinary proceedings are not being initiated, nor even charges have been framed in criminal trial for sufficiently long period, the Court passed the order of review of suspension. This Court thereafter in number of writ petitions passed the order requiring the concerned employees to approach the respondents directing that they should on representation of the petitioners reconsider the advisability of continuation of their suspension in terms of Rules 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 by instructions dated 10.8.01 in the light of aforesaid judgement. One such judgement in Harendra Singh dated 3.5.2010 has been cited also the order of his reinstatement dated 11.6.09 has been cited. 4. Learned counsel has produced for perusal of the Court as many as two such orders which has been passed on representation of concerned employee, wherein similar orders have been passed by this Court and were considered by the respondents. 5. Shri M.F. Baig, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that suspension by itself is not a penalty, nor does it attach the stigma, but by this order the Government servant is discharged of the duties so that he may not unduly influence any disciplinary proceeding or proceeding in a criminal case. If eventually the petitioners are exonerated or acquittal, they would be entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits. 6. It is also argued that this Court may examine the validity of order of impugned order and the petitioners may be relegated to the remedy of representation as was done in the case of other writ petitioners and there is no reason to presume that the respondent-department would not consider their representation with open mind. 7. 6. It is also argued that this Court may examine the validity of order of impugned order and the petitioners may be relegated to the remedy of representation as was done in the case of other writ petitioners and there is no reason to presume that the respondent-department would not consider their representation with open mind. 7. In the light of that stand of the respondents and considering the fact that re-suspension orders of the petitioners have remained in operation due to interim order passed by this Court and that even otherwise the petitioners have remained under suspension for sufficiently long period and trial in most of the cases has so far not going to be concluded soon, I require the petitioners to again approach the respondents producing the copies of the judgements passed by this Court, citing the orders of reinstatement passed in the cases of other similarly situated employees. The respondents may reconsider the questions of their reinstatement in the light of those judgements and pass appropriate order with regard thereto. Till the fresh order is passed, the interim orders passed by this Court in each of the petitions would remain operative. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.Petition Disposed of as Above - Stay to Meanwhile Continue. *******