ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “ a. to pay full pay and allowances for the period after revocation suspension till he was prevented from joining his new post after suspension, i.e., from 28.01.2005 to 01.07.2006.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing this application however has confined to the aforementioned relief of payment of allowances for merely 17 to 18 months. He submits that even though the suspension of the petitioner is said to have been revoked by the Government on 28.01.2005 after inflicting him certain punishment, the fact remains that the petitioner was never served a copy of the aforesaid notification dated 28.01.2005 at the place where he had remained posted during the period of suspension i.e. in the Office of the Regional Deputy Director of Health, Patna, which was the headquarter of the petitioner fixed during the period of his suspension. 4. In view of the earlier counter affidavit filed by the respondents claiming that the petitioner was given such information of revocation of the suspension which had itself contained a clause for reporting on duty by the petitioner at his previous place of posting where he was posted prior to his suspension, this Court on 2.9.2011 had passed the following order:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the divergent stand taken by the petitioner and the respondents, this Court would now direct the petitioner to file a specific supplementary affidavit with documentary proof as with regard to the payment of subsistence allowance on or after 28.1.2005 to 1.7.2006 and/or his remaining stationed at the Headquarters at Patna during the period of suspension, in the aforementioned period. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner had not received the subsistence allowance after 28.1.2005 and had also not continued to be in the headquarters during his suspension, the natural presumption would be that the petitioner was fully aware of the order of revocation of his suspension, which had also contained a clause for reporting on duty at his earlier place of posting. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that in compliance of the suspension order of the petitioner dated 03.06.2002, he had continued to report in the Office of Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna and in absence of any information given to him as with regard to the revocation and suspension on 28.01.2005, he continued to remain associated with the Headquarters during the period of his suspension and that is how he was also paid subsistence allowance up to the period till 30.06.2006 as would be evidenced from the last pay certificate issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna on 08.12.2006 (Annexure-8). 6. Learned counsel for the State in view of the aforementioned specific stand supported by the documentary evidence would find it difficult to defend his earlier stand as also taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, inasmuch as, neither the order revoking suspension dated 28.01.2005 (Annexure-A) nor its receipt by the Civil Surgeon, Kishanganj on 28.02.2005 as acknowledged in his letter dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure-B) can be proof of the fact that the petitioner was served with the order dated 28.01.2005. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State on a communication dated 13.5.2006 (Annexure-C) to the petitioner enclosing a copy of order dated 28.1.2005 is also incorrect in the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, such an order dated 28.01.2005 containing the notification of the revocation of suspension of the petitioner with a direction to join his earlier place of posting prior to the order of suspension, was shown to have been actually sent at the address of Primary Health Centre, Tedagaanch (Kishanganj), where the petitioner was not posted at that point of time. The petitioner’s headquarter under suspension being in the Office of Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna, such an order was required to be sent to him at Patna. As a matter of fact if there was any proof of receipt such an order dated 28.1.2005 in the Office of Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna the headquarter of the petitioner during the period of suspension there could be no question of payment of subsistence allowance to petitioner after 28.01.2005. As a matter of fact if there was any proof of receipt such an order dated 28.1.2005 in the Office of Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna the headquarter of the petitioner during the period of suspension there could be no question of payment of subsistence allowance to petitioner after 28.01.2005. However, as noted above the petitioner was paid his subsistence allowance treating him to be continuing in suspension even after 28.01.2005 and infact up to 01.07.2006 which by itself would leave nothing for speculation that the petitioner was never informed about his revocation of suspension and/or his posting at the same place. 7. That being so, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary for the period from 28.01.2005 to 21.07.2006 after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance which has already been paid to him. Such payment of the salary by the Competent Authority must be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.