JUDGMENT Mr. M.M. Kumar, J.:- The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 7.7.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that once the order of compulsory retirement is set aside by this Court then the delinquent employee is deemed to be placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal and the suspension shall continue to remain in operation till further orders. 2. It has come on record that on 23.7.2007 a learned Single Judge while hearing CWP No. 14602 of 1999 had quashed the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Sr. Regional Manager of the appellant- Coropration leaving it open to the competent authority to proceed afresh into the matter if it is otherwise permissible under the Regulations applicable to the employees of the Corporation. The reasoning for the aforesaid approach was that the appellant did not serve note of dis agreement in respect of charge no.2 to the delinquent employee. The delinquent employee was exonerated on Charge No.2 but the competent authority found him guilty of that charge also and passed the order of dismissal which was eventually converted into compulsory retirement by the revisional authority on 24.11.1998. The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was set aside on 23.7.2007 when a learned Single Judge of this Court held that on charge no.2 the appellant could not have recorded the finding of guilty without complying with the principles of natural justice as was held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra 1998(5) SLR 715. The appellant after complying with the requirement of law again found on 8.1.2008 that the delinquent employee was liable to be compulsorily retired. 3. The only question which was raised and decided by the learned Single Judge is whether in terms of Sub Regulation 4 of Regulation 66 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Regulations’) the delinquent employee- respondent was entitled to be under deemed suspension after setting aside the compulsory retirement order passed on 24.11.1998. After quoting Regulation, the learned Single Judge has found that the delinquent employee would be entitled to be treated under suspension w.e.f. 26.9.1996 to 31.12.2006 and has issued directions for payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with Regulation 66(6) of the Regulations. 4. After quoting Regulation, the learned Single Judge has found that the delinquent employee would be entitled to be treated under suspension w.e.f. 26.9.1996 to 31.12.2006 and has issued directions for payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with Regulation 66(6) of the Regulations. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- FCI at a considerable length and find that there is no error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference of the Letters Patent Bench in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is patent from a bare perusal of Regulation 66 (4) of the Regulations that once the Court has quashed the order of compulsory retirement and the appellant decided to proceed against the delinquent employee then there is no escape from the conclusion that such an employee would be deemed to be placed under suspension. Once he is treated to be placed under suspension then he would become entitled to consequential benefits of payment of subsistence allowance. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------