JUDGMENT K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner pursuant to Government orders G.O.Ms. No. 292 dated 31/03/1987 and G.O.Ms. No. 128 dated 21/02/2006 and G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 28/02/2006 by revoking the suspension order of the 1st respondent in Roc.B2/250/2010 dated 13/01/2010 and treat the period of suspension as continuous period of service. 2. The petitioner joined as a Masalji and was subsequently promoted as Night Watchman and in such capacity he was discharging his duty from 12.10.1984 onwards. He was placed under suspension on 13.01.2010. Challenging the said order of suspension, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 576 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 28.03.2011. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal in W.A. (MD) No. 1490 of 2011, wherein an order came to be passed on 18.01.2012 holding that proper course would be to grant the subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of suspension. In spite of the above said order passed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, the subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner also made a representation seeking for revocation of suspension on 07.11.2012. As the said representation has not been considered and the subsistence allowance has not been paid, the petitioner preferred the above said writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. Though this writ petition is filed seeking for regularization of the service of the petitioner by revoking the order of suspension, this Court is not inclined to go into the question of regularization of the petitioner on the simple reason that the petitioner is under suspension and therefore, the question of regularisation does not arise at this stage. Already the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension and this Court refused to interfere with the said order and however, observed that the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance. The Honourable Division Bench has also directed the respondents to take further action immediately thereon in pursuant to the enquiry report, within a period of eight weeks. Therefore, it is for the authorities to pass final orders on the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The Honourable Division Bench has also directed the respondents to take further action immediately thereon in pursuant to the enquiry report, within a period of eight weeks. Therefore, it is for the authorities to pass final orders on the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, in the meantime, the authorities cannot withhold the subsistence allowance, which was already found payable to the petitioner in W.A. (MD) No. 1490 of 2011 wherein the relevant observations at made paragraph 4 to 6 read as follows:- 4. Considering the fact that the order of suspension itself records the rights of the petitioner to receive the subsistence allowance from the period of suspension as early as 13.01.2010, we feel that the proper course would be to grant the subsistence allowance to the appellant, which he is entitled to. It is no doubt true that in the proceedings dated 14.09.2010, the respondent has passed an order stating that the petitioner's service had not been regularised for granting the subsistence allowance. However, a perusal of the proceedings would show that the said order came to be passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 9006 of 2010 dated 14.07.2010, when this Court directed the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance during the period suspension, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for consideration. It is seen from the said order of rejection that the services of the petitioner was never regularised to have the subsistence allowance granted under Rule 53(1) of the said Rules. In the circumstances, the petitioner prayer for granting of subsistence allowance and withdrawing the order of suspension or re-employment did not arise. It is also seen that the appellant was originally appointed as a Night Watchman from 12.10.1984 on the basis of daily wages and he continued to be so, till the proceedings were taken against the appellant for the irregularities committed leading to the shortage of dhotis and sarees. 5. It is also seen from the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Devakottai, dated 08.03.2011, addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer Devakkottai, that in respect of the irregularities as regards unloading the dhotis and sarees, a request was made to register a case against the appellant and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakkottai had also placed a report on enquiry dated 17.06.2011 before the District Collector for his orders. The said respondent pointed out to the involvement of three other persons in causing loss due to the deficit stock of sarees and dhotis that all the four persons including the writ petitioner were jointly and severally responsible to make good the loss and that order may be passed to recover the same from them. 6. In the background of these facts and the conflicting claims made by the respondent by issuing a letter on 13.01.2010 keeping the petitioner under suspension and the subsequent order passed on 14.09.2010 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any subsistence allowance, this Court feels that taking note of the date of the appointment of the petitioner as early as in 1984 and the recommendation made by the District Collector as early as 24.07.1992, to the Special Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chennai, for regularising the services and the G.O's passed by the Government regularising the services of the similarly placed persons, the impugned order, dated 13.01.2010, granting subsistence allowance and dearness allowance as admissible under Rule 53(1) be given effect to without any delay within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. As far as the proceedings taken which had resulted in the passing of the enquiry report is concerned, the respondent is directed to take further action immediately thereon within, a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Thus, by going by the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the period of suspension and the arrears of such subsistence allowance shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Honourable Division Bench has already directed the authorities to complete the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the authorities shall complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final order without any further delay, however, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.