Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Vocational Instructor employed in the fourth respondent School, which is a private school governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. He was placed under suspension by the fourth respondent by an order dated 11.09.2012. Thereafter, he was issued a charge memo dated 27.11.2012. 2. I am not going into the merits of the matter as the same is not relevant for disposal of this case. Since the petitioner was placed under suspension beyond the period of two months, he has approached this court by filing this writ petition seeking to quash the same. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. According to the fourth respondent School, though they sought for extension of suspension for two more months, as per Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, read with rule 17(2) of the rules framed thereunder, no order was passed extending the suspension period and therefore, it should be deemed that suspension period was extended. Therefore, they cannot be blamed for keeping the petitioner under suspension for four months as provided under the Statute. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is relevant for the purpose of this case and the same is extracted hereunder: “22 (3)(b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not completed within that period, such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other employee: Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months, for a further period not exceeding two months, if, in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such teacher or other person.” 6. Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 has placed restriction on the School Management that the petitioner shall not be kept under suspension for a period of two months initially and thereafter, with the permission of the authorities, the period could be extended for two more months. Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 has placed restriction on the School Management that the petitioner shall not be kept under suspension for a period of two months initially and thereafter, with the permission of the authorities, the period could be extended for two more months. In fact, such a provision is for the benefit of the students. It is well settled that if the School is not inclined to restore the petitioner into service, they could very well keep the petitioner out of service, but shall pay full wages. However, I make it clear that the school shall make some arrangements to fill the vacancies as a temporary measure so that the interest of the students shall not get jeopardize, otherwise, the very purpose of the Statute namely Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 will get defeated. 7. In this case, the period of suspension went beyond two months and the concerned educational authorities did not accord approval for extension of suspension for two more months. It is stated that the fourth respondent school made proper representation seeking to extend the suspension for two more months and no order was passed. In those circumstances, it is for the school to undertake appropriate steps in the Court of Law compelling the authorities to pass orders on the request for extension of suspension. In the absence of the order from the authority extending the suspension period beyond two months, the school is bound to pay full salary beyond two months period of suspension, until the petitioner is permitted to join duty 8. After filing of the writ petition, the fourth respondent passed an order dated 07.09.2013 revoking the suspension and permitting the petitioner to join duty. While revoking the order of suspension, the fourth respondent imposed the following conditions: “TAMIL” 9. The aforesaid order was served on the petitioner on 10.09.2013. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 11.09.2013 to the fourth respondent making objections that since the writ petition is pending and also certain conditions are imposed in the aforesaid order, he could not join duty. 10. In my view, once the fourth respondent revoked the suspension, the petitioner should have joined duty. Of course, the fourth respondent may not be correct in imposing conditions, while revoking the suspension. 10. In my view, once the fourth respondent revoked the suspension, the petitioner should have joined duty. Of course, the fourth respondent may not be correct in imposing conditions, while revoking the suspension. But the conditions that are imposed in the revocation order is nothing extraordinary. Among the two conditions, one states that the order is subject to the outcome of the writ petition. No one can have objection for the same. The another condition is that the petitioner shall not write unnecessary letters in future. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner in his reply dated 11.09.2013 that due to the aforesaid condition that he should not write unnecessary letters has made him not to report duty. Even then, the same may not be a good reason since he could join duty without prejudice to his right to make representation, if any. Still the fourth respondent has taken any action, the same shall be dealt properly by this Court or by the educational authorities. Instead, the petitioner has chosen not to join duty. 12. Ultimately, on 28.03.2014, the same was brought to the notice of this Court and this Court passed the following order on 28.03.2014, in this writ petition: “The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has submitted that the suspension order was revoked on 07.09.2013 and still the petitioner has not reported for duty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will report for duty on 03.04.2014. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. The Management has not raised any objection for reporting duty by the petitioner. Post on 06.06.2014.” 13. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the third respondent shall pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the first two months and the fourth respondent shall send necessary proposal in this regard, if it is required under the Statute. 14. Accordingly, the fourth respondent is directed to send necessary proposal for subsistence allowance to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such proposal, the third respondent is directed to disburse the subsistence allowance for the first two months at the rate as prescribed under the rules within a period of two weeks thereafter. 15. On receipt of such proposal, the third respondent is directed to disburse the subsistence allowance for the first two months at the rate as prescribed under the rules within a period of two weeks thereafter. 15. After two months period of suspension, the fourth respondent shall pay full wages upto 10.09.2013. Since the order dated 07.09.2013 revoking the suspension was delivered to the petitioner on 10.09.2013, he should have joined duty on 11.09.2013. Since he did not join duty, he cannot claim salary from the fourth respondent thereafter. 16. The reply dated 11.09.2013 of the petitioner for not reporting duty even after revocation of suspension is not satisfactory. Hence, I am of the view that the fourth respondent shall pay full salary from 11.11.2012 to 10.09.2013 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the interest of justice, I issue direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the period of suspension from 10.09.2013 to 03.04.2014, the date of joining duty, for all purposes except for payment of salary. 17. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.