ORDER 1. The I.A. No. 2956 of 2010 has been filed for condoning the delay of 210 days in filing this appeal. 2. Counsel for the State, appearing for the appellants submitted that the delay, has been explained whereas Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submitted that there has been no explanation for such a long delay. 3. We have heard the parties on merits also. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the order dated 31.7.2001 was not clear with regard to payment of salary during suspension period, and therefore, a clarification was sought by letter dated 17.9.2001 as to whether full salary was to be paid during suspension period or whether only subsistence allowance was to be paid and also as to whether the increment is to be paid during the suspension period or not. Accordingly, the order was passed on 29.8.2003 holding that only subsistence allowance is to be paid during suspension period, though such period will be counted for pension. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the said order dated 31.7.2001 was passed by the Secretary, and then the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 was passed by the Joint Secretary, who could not over-ride the order of the Secretary. Moreover, in the order dated 31.7.2001, the Secretary had clearly said that the payment of salary during suspension period will be done as per the rules. And Rule 97 provides that only in the case of major punishment, the payment of salary can be withheld, but in the present case only warning was given, and the proceeding was dropped with warning. 6. On going through the records, it appears that after considering the respective case of the parties and the materials brought on record by them, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 refusing the salary during suspension period was illegal and contrary to the rules. The respondent was rightly directed to access the total of the arrears of salary for the period during suspension and pay the same to the respondent within two months. 7. The long delay of 210 days has not been explained satisfactorily. However, even if such explanation is accepted, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. The respondent was rightly directed to access the total of the arrears of salary for the period during suspension and pay the same to the respondent within two months. 7. The long delay of 210 days has not been explained satisfactorily. However, even if such explanation is accepted, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. The I.A. No. 2956 of 2010 also stands disposed of. 8. As the order under appeal was passed far back on 8.12.2009, the appellants are directed to comply the said order as early as possible and preferably within four weeks from today. Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.