JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension dated 26.04.2010 passed by the second respondent and consequently, seeking for reinstatement into service. 2. Now, it is represented by both sides that the said order of suspension was subsequently revoked by the proceeding dated 09.10.2010 issued by the second respondent and the petitioner is also now working as Village Assistant. Therefore, the prayer sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that for the period of suspension, the petitioner was not given subsistence allowance. Therefore, the same may be directed to be paid to the petitioner. If no subsistence allowance was paid for those periods, it is for the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities concerned seeking for payment of subsistence allowance and as and when any such representation is made, it is only for the authorities to consider and pass orders on the same. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.