1. Writ petitioners were arrested and came to be placed under suspension vide Govt. orders contained in Annexure A and B to the writ petition. 2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners came to the court and questioned their suspension order by the medium of writ petition SWP No. 406 of 2003, was allowed. It is apt to reproduce operative part of the judgment herein:- "State action in order to be held valid it should not be susceptible to the arbitrariness because this is the essence of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the rule of law on which Indian system of governance is based. Having regard to this law respondents cannot evolve policy of pick and choose in order to confer benefit upon who is entitled to and deny the same to the later who is similarly circumstanced with the former therefore, direction is issued in the name of respondents that they shall treat this writ petition as representation and shall pass orders in the light of the aforesaid observations. This exercise shall be completed during the course of two months from the date copy of this order together with copy of the writ petition is made available to them by the petitioner. Registrar Judicial to furnish copy of this order and the copy of the writ petition free of costs to the petitioners to enable him to furnish the same to the respondents." 3. Respondents considered and made an order No. 185-PN(HY) of 2004 dated 18th May, 2004-Annexure D and reinstated the petitioners. However, the suspension period was kept subject to the court proceedings. Respondents have failed to pass any order and make a decision till today. Even the case has not been taken to its logical end constraining the petitioners to file writ petition on the ground that like petitioners, the other employees are also facing trial but were not placed under suspension. The wages are also contended to have been withheld. 4. The respondents have failed also to make a decision about the period of suspension till today which is voilative and discriminatory. 5 Respondents have filed reply. Admittedly no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioners. The question is as to whether the respondents can afford to keep the decision vis-a-vis the period of suspension. 4. The respondents have failed also to make a decision about the period of suspension till today which is voilative and discriminatory. 5 Respondents have filed reply. Admittedly no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioners. The question is as to whether the respondents can afford to keep the decision vis-a-vis the period of suspension. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that petitioners were placed under suspension in terms of Article 133 of Civil Service Regulations and it is for the respondents in terms of the said provision to revoke the suspension order which came to be revoked. Thus respondents had to decide the suspension period. 6. Keeping in view the mandate of Article 108 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations read with ratio laid down by the Apex Court in SCC 1987 (3) 258, titled as E.S. Reddi v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of A. P. And Anr. respondents are directed to decide the period of suspension as per the Rules within one month from the date copy of the order is served upon them notwithstanding the condition contained in order dated 18.5.2004. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.