JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the captioned writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition which has been referred to the Division Bench. We have also heard the learned standing counsel for KSRTC. The writ appeal arises from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.882 of 2014. The basic issues of law arising for decision in that writ appeal and in W.P.(C) No. 10914 of 2014 are the same and the facts relevant for those questions of law are nearly similar except as to the identity of the dates etc. 2. The employees involved in these litigations faced disciplinary proceedings on different counts while permanently employed with KSRTC. They were not placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, both of them suffered removal from service or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. They did not succeed in the institutional appeal and carried revisions to the Tribunal constituted to deal with the service disputes of KSRTC employees. The Tribunal set aside the findings and directed what it called as 'remit' to the respective disciplinary authorities requiring further proceedings to be held in terms of the Tribunal's directions. 3. The question posed in these matters is as to whether those employees are to be treated as to be under deemed suspension for the relevant period of time and therefore, eligible to subsistence allowance; the provision for deemed suspension being Rule 10(5) of the Kerala Civil Services "(CC&A) Rules", 1960, hereinafter referred to as the CC&A Rules and Rule 55 in Part-I of Kerala Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as "KSR" which deals with eligibility for payments while under suspension. 4. Rule 10(4) of CC&A Rules applies to cases where the officer concerned is placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. That is not the case here. Both of the employees were never placed under suspension during the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in transfer, removal of service or compulsory retirement. That status continued until the Tribunal set aside those decisions; coupled with the directions to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as directed therein. Therefore, it is not a case where the disciplinary authority was left with the freedom to decide as to hold further enquiry against the delinquent officer or not. That status continued until the Tribunal set aside those decisions; coupled with the directions to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as directed therein. Therefore, it is not a case where the disciplinary authority was left with the freedom to decide as to hold further enquiry against the delinquent officer or not. They stood under the statutory command by the superior tribunal requiring further proceedings to be carried out in terms of the order of remit made by that tribunal. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of CC&A Rules deals with situations where the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed. Under such situation, Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of CC&A Rules enjoins that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date from which he was originally dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, as the case may be, and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. But, as noted above, that is not the case here. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No. 10914 of 2014, supported by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 1002 of 2014, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rushi Guman Singh v. State of Orissa and others, (2013)11 SCC 266 to contend that the deeming provision relating to suspension operates automatically on the setting aside of the order of removal from service, compulsory retirement or dismissal. 6. We are unable to accept the aforesaid argument. For one thing, in Rushi Guman Singh (supra), that employee was aggrieved by an order of deemed suspension imposed on him while disciplinary proceedings were pushed forward on the decision of the disciplinary authority pursuant to that person's removal from service being set aside by the competent court of law. That is not the case here. For one thing, in Rushi Guman Singh (supra), that employee was aggrieved by an order of deemed suspension imposed on him while disciplinary proceedings were pushed forward on the decision of the disciplinary authority pursuant to that person's removal from service being set aside by the competent court of law. That is not the case here. Not only that, Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 is not a provision which operates automatically and effectuates eo instanti, the setting aside of an order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. What happens when such an order is set aside by a competent court of law, is that it becomes available within the domain of the disciplinary authority to consider as to whether further enquiry has to be held against the delinquent. In doing so, the disciplinary authority has to consider the circumstances of the case and has to decide as to whether an enquiry has to be held or not. That is a decision to be taken, on the satisfaction to be arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 would operate only in cases where the disciplinary authority decides to hold a further enquiry against the delinquent. It does not operate in a case where a review authority of superior jurisdiction, either statutory or otherwise, directs further proceedings to be held after setting aside an order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service. An order of suspension from service as well as an order of deemed suspension from service for the purpose of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 are orders to be made by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be. This is why Sub-rule 6 of Rule 10 enjoins revocation of such orders by the very same authority. If there is an automatic deeming provision which operates by the force of the judicial order setting aside or declaring as void a penalty order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, such a suspension order cannot be visualised as one available to be revoked by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority. If there is an automatic deeming provision which operates by the force of the judicial order setting aside or declaring as void a penalty order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, such a suspension order cannot be visualised as one available to be revoked by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority. So much so, the irresistible conclusion is that, except in cases where the disciplinary authority takes an independent decision to hold a further enquiry as is provided for under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of the CC&A Rules, the question of one claiming to be under deemed suspension does not arise. 7. The aforesaid takes us to Rule 55 of Part I KSR which deals with the entitlement for payments. The person entitled is an officer under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension. The opening part of Rule 55 says that "an officer under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority is entitled ......". The emphasis is on the fact that an eligibility under Rule 55 for payment has to be footed only on the basis of an order of the appointing authority placing a person under suspension or deemed suspension. Therefore, a situation of deemed suspension resulting out of the setting aside of an order of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement by a judicial authority or other superior authority is insufficient to attract the eligibility for subsistence allowance under Rule 55 of Part, I KSR. The claim in this regard, therefore, fails. 8. At this juncture, we may immediately state that there are different other matters that could be pending between the employees before us and the KSRTC, including claims for appropriate orders under Rule 56 of Part I KSR, as also, completion of disciplinary proceedings, including by answering the challenge thereto. All issues in those matters are left open recording the request of the writ petitioner and the appellant that the KSRTC may make an endevour to conclude proceedings in their cases as expeditiously as possible. Subject to what is stated in the penultimate paragraph, the writ appeal and the writ petition are dismissed.