JUDGMENT : Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the orders passed by the respondents cancelling the promotion granted to petitioner by way of Kramonnatti, cancelling the selection grade granted to petitioner and taking certain further coercive steps vide orders Annexure A-9, A-11, A-14 and A-16 dated 18.3.1986, 18.6.1991, 31.3.1995 and 2.6.1998 this application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Administrative Tribunal Madhya Pradesh in the year 1998. After winding up of Tribunal matter has been transferred to this Court and is registered as W.P. No. 12935/2003. The original petition was filed in the year 1998 by Shri B.S. Markam who at the relevant time was working as Assistant Professor in Govt. College Dalli Rajuhara, District Durg, now in the State of Chattisgarh and at the relevant time in the state of M.P. As the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities of the M.P., when undivided state of M.P. included district Durg, which is now under Chattisgarh, this court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Records indicate that petitioner was placed under suspension for the period 17.12.1985 to 21.9.1993. During the period of suspension he was getting 50% subsistence allowance, now it is reported that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner has been concluded and based on findings recorded in departmental enquiry punishment of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect has been imposed vide Annexure P-6. However, grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is that while working in the department concerned he has been granted kramonnatti and higher pay-scale after completing 16 years of service vide order Annexure P-8 on 5.9.1985. He has been given kramonnatti on the higher pay scale of Professor and his name appears at Sr. No. 23. The applicant was paid the higher pay-scale of Professor, but vide order Annexure P-9 dated 18.3.1986, kramonnatti granted had been withdrawn. Similarly vide order Annexure A-10 dated 18.4.1991 petitioner was given selection scale with effect from 1.1.86 and same is also cancelled vide Annexure A-11 dated 18.6.91. Petitioner was also granted further selection grade vide Annexure A-14 dated 31.3.95, but same has also been cancelled, the order of giving super scale has also been illegally cancelled. Grievance of petitioner is that the order impugned have been passed without hearing him and action is taking without issuing any show-cause notice. Petitioner was also granted further selection grade vide Annexure A-14 dated 31.3.95, but same has also been cancelled, the order of giving super scale has also been illegally cancelled. Grievance of petitioner is that the order impugned have been passed without hearing him and action is taking without issuing any show-cause notice. It is indicated that if the petitioner was proceeded against and action is taken because of the pendency of the department proceedings, but as departmental proceedings culminated with only stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect the same cannot have effect to deprive him the benefits of pay fixation, as indicated hereinabove. 2. Matter is pending since 1998 and the state of M.P. has not filed any reply. The State of Chattisgarh respondent No. 3 has filed reply and it is stated by them as the impugned action was taken by the State of M.P. in the year 1998 the State of Chattisgarh has nothing to do in the matter. However, they submit that the original petitioner Shri Markam had retired on 31.8.2004 and after his retirement all his pensionary claims have been settled. 3. As far as state of M.P. is concerned nothing is forthcoming from the state as to why impugned action is taken against petitioner and why the benefit of kramonnatti granted has been withdrawn. During the pendency of petition the original petitioner Markam died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. 4. From the records it is seen that petitioner was suspended on 17.12.1985 vide Annexure A-2 and a departmental enquiry was also initiated against him for which a charge-sheet Annexure A-4 was issued to the petitioner on 20.1.86 and finally the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect was imposed vide Annexure P-6 dated 16.2.1994. However, kramonnatti to the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor in the cadre of Professor has already been granted vide order 5.9.85, as is evident from Annexure A-8. That being so, when kramonnatti was granted to the petitioner vide order Annexure A-8 dated 5.9.85 neither was he suspended nor departmental enquiry was pending against him, pendency of departmental enquiry commences only on 17.12.85 when he was suspended or subsequent thereof when charge-sheet was issued on 20.1.1986. That being so cancellation of kramonnatti granted on 5.9.85 vide Annexure A-8 cannot be made on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry. 5. That being so cancellation of kramonnatti granted on 5.9.85 vide Annexure A-8 cannot be made on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry. 5. That apart, respondents have not heard the petitioner, nor granted him any opportunity of hearing and as entire action is taken behind his back, that being so the order Annexure A-9 cancelling his kramonnatti is unsustainable, as it is passed in violation to the principle of natural justice. That being so, order Annexure A-9 dated 18.9.95 cancelling kramonnatti granted vide Annexure A-8 dated 5.9.85 being unsustainable is quashed. 6. As far as withdrawal of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner vide Annexure A-10 by the impugned order Annexure A-11 is concerned, once kramonnatti granted to the petitioner, which was withdrawn vide Annexure A-9 dated 18.9.1995 is quashed by this Court and there being no difference the in pay scale of Professor and scale granted to petitioner vide Annexure A-10 the same does not cause any loss to the petitioner, therefore, interference into the matter is not called for. 7. Now the question being agitated is for regularizing the period of suspension, admittedly the petitioner is under suspension from 17.12.85 to 21.9.93 and after the punishment order Annexure A-6 was issued the disciplinary authority has not passed any order with regard to regularization of period of suspension. On representation being made petitioner has only informed that nothing else is to be paid. However, orders by the disciplinary authority for regularizing the period of suspension has not been passed, the disciplinary authority is required to pass the order regularizing the period of suspension in accordance to provisions of Fundamental Rules. This having not been done now the disciplinary authority shall pass the order with regard to regularization of suspension in accordance to statutory rules. Keeping in view this factors this petition is disposed of in the following terms: The impugned order cancelling the kramonnatti granted to the petitioner as contained in Annexure A-9 dated 18.3.86 is quashed. The late employee Shri B.L. Markam shall be entitled to kramonnatti with effect from 5.9.85 and now all monetary dues shall be paid to the present petitioners i.e. the legal heirs. The late employee Shri B.L. Markam shall be entitled to kramonnatti with effect from 5.9.85 and now all monetary dues shall be paid to the present petitioners i.e. the legal heirs. So far as suspension is concerned, on the petitioners' filing a certified copy of this order the competent disciplinary authority shall pass an order with regard to regularization of period of suspension in accordance to requirement of statutory rules within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Now in view of this order the monetary dues and other post retiral benefits payable to ex-employee shall be calculated and paid to the legal heirs i.e. the present petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Claim of widow for grant of family pension shall also be considered and decided within aforesaid period. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.