JUDGMENT J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues for my consideration arising in all the captioned writ-applications are the same those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The Special Civil Application 14823 of 2010 is treated as the lead matter. 3. The petitioners before me are all employees of the respondent No. 1, Anand Agricultural University. Some of those are in service while others have attained superannuation. They have prayed for the following reliefs:- "A) Direct the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of pay after completion of six months from suspension order till reinstatement date. B) Direct the respondents to pay the petitioners subsequent benefits i.e. yearly increments even during suspension period grant promotions after reinstatement order, revision of pay scale i.e. selection grade Higher Pay Scale i.e. selection grade Higher Pay Scale, revision of new pay scale (including benefit of career advancement to the teachers)." 4. The facts of the case may be summarized as under:- 5. All the petitioners serving with the respondent No. 1 - University were arrested by the Police in connection with a loan scam. They were arrested in connection with an offence registered with the Vidyanagar Police Station, District-Anand, vide C.R. No. I-111/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 120B, 471, 466 and 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Out of the five petitioners four petitioners were arrested some time in the year 2006 and one was arrested some time in the year 2007. After each of the petitioners was arrested by the Police the University passed separate orders of suspension. 7. The chart below provides the necessary details. 8. Thus, it appears that each of the petitioners remained in judicial custody for a period of about two years from the date of their arrest. The investigation also culminated in filing of the charge-sheet. The prosecution against them is pending as on today in the criminal Court at Anand. 9. It is also very clear that no sooner they were arrested and remained in custody for a period accepting 48 hours then they were deemed to have been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1971 for short (the Rules, 1971). 9. It is also very clear that no sooner they were arrested and remained in custody for a period accepting 48 hours then they were deemed to have been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1971 for short (the Rules, 1971). However, individual orders of suspension were passed against each of the petitioners referred to above. 10. The dispute raised in this writ-application is with regard to the subsistence allowance and the validity of the order of suspension. 11. It is also not in dispute that while the petitioners were under suspension they were being paid the subsistence allowances at the rate of 50%. However, it is the case of the petitioners that they should have been paid at the rate of 75% on the expiry of the first six months of the suspension. 12. The second issue raised is with regard to the validity of the order of suspension since the orders of suspension were not taken in review at an interval of 90 days in accordance with the sub rule 2(A) of rule 5 of the Rules, 1971. 13. Mr. G.B. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the rules provide that the suspension order shall be reviewed by the competent authority before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. He submitted that the rules also provide that the suspension order shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period. Mr. Shah pointed out that the State Government vide its Resolution No. CVO-122005-1077-TA dated 20th July, 2007 has clarified that if the authority fails to review the order of suspension within the prescribed time limit then in that case the responsibility of that authority would have to be fixed. 14. Mr. Shah submitted that his client preferred representations to the respondent No. 1 bringing it to their notice the relevant rules but of no avail. 15. Mr. Shah submitted that in the past his clients had to come before this Court by way of the Special Civil Application No. 12193 of 2009 with allied matters with a grievance regarding the legality and validity of the suspension and a learned single judge of this Court vide order dated 7th December, 2009 disposed of those writ-applications in the following terms:- "1. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. D.G. Chauhan, placed on record affidavit in reply of the in-charge Registrar of respondent University and it is taken on record. As stated in the affidavit in reply, suspension of the petitioners is presently under review and the petitioners are required to cooperate with the respondent for deciding whether suspension of the petitioners should be ended or extended. It is also stated in the affidavit in reply that, by order dated 6.12.2008, cases of the petitioners were considered, and it was decided that, since the petitioners did not furnish necessary particulars and since the charge sheet was already filed in the Criminal Court, the petitioners were not entitled to suspension allowance at 75% of their wages. In such circumstances, it was fairly stated, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners, by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. J.R. Nanavati that the petitioners were prepared to cooperate in any enquiry or hearing that may be held by the respondent for deciding upon the grievances made by the petitioners, and the cases of the petitioners were required to be considered in view of prospect of criminal trial remaining pending for many years while the petitioners as well as the respondent would be put to losses, even as, apparently, the criminal case was not in respect of any alleged act or omission related to service of the petitioners under the respondent. 2. Therefore, it was jointly submitted at the bar that the petitioners may be permitted to place their case before the review committee and the committee may decide the issue of continuation of suspension of the petitioners and payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with law on rational and reasonable basis. For that purpose and to that extent, the parties have agreed to cooperate and the petitions are requested to be disposed at this stage without going into merits of the claims made by the petitioners. It was also agreed that hearing shall be held and appropriate decision shall be rendered by the review committee latest by 8th January 2010. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed, after recording above limited consensus, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if and when occasion arises therefor. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs." 16. Mr. It was also agreed that hearing shall be held and appropriate decision shall be rendered by the review committee latest by 8th January 2010. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed, after recording above limited consensus, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if and when occasion arises therefor. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs." 16. Mr. Shah submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge referred to above his clients filed respective representations dated 24th December, 2009. Mr. Shah submitted that thereafter a committee was constituted to look into the orders of suspension and the committee vide its report dated 8th January, 2010 recommended that the orders of suspension be revoked and they be reinstated in service subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings. The committee also observed in its report that the orders of suspension be revoked on the condition that the employees shall not put forward any claim regarding regularization of the period of suspension till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 17. Mr. Shah submitted that in the order of the learned Single Judge referred to above it was made clear that the committee may also decide the issue as regards the payment of the subsistence allowance in accordance with law. He submitted that inspite of the order passed by the learned Single Judge the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% was not paid to the petitioners. He pointed out Rule 68 of the Gujarat Civil Services Manual which provides that a suspended employee is eligible for 75% of the pay as the subsistence allowances after the completion of six months. Mr. Shah submitted that his clients were eligible for (i) 75% subsistence allowance after six months from suspension order (ii) All Normal yearly increments as per circular dt. 25/03/1991 of the Respondent University. (iii) All consequential and subsequent benefits, after revocation of the suspension order, and (iv) benefits as per the State Government Notification dt. 4/7/2007 and Resolution dt. 20/07/2007. 18. On the other hand these writ-applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. D.G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 - University. Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ-application. 4/7/2007 and Resolution dt. 20/07/2007. 18. On the other hand these writ-applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. D.G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 - University. Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ-application. He submitted that all the petitioners were arrested by the Police in connection with a very serious offence of forgery and cheating. He submitted that they all remained in the judicial custody for a long time before they were released on bail. He further submitted that having regard to the serious nature of the charge against them, they were not entitled to any enhanced rate of the subsistence allowance. He submitted that they were deemed to be placed under suspension and therefore there was no question of reviewing the orders of suspension on expiry or before the expiry of the period of 90 days. He submitted that at least till the time each of the petitioners were in the judicial custody there was no necessity to take the orders of suspension under review. He submitted that after the petitioners were released on bail they could have informed the authorities regarding their release so that appropriate procedure for review of the suspension orders, could have been undertaken. 19. Mr. Chauhan has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by one Shri Piyush Vaishnav, the Registrar of the respondent-University, inter alia, stating as under:- "(i) The petitioner has committed serious criminal offence punishable under the provisions of Sections406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the said offence on 31-7-2007, the petitioner was arrested and remained in jail upto 22-1-2008 i.e. for about 6 months. The charge sheet dated 24-10-2007 has already been filed against the petitioner and other employees. The criminal case is pending for trial. (ii) The petitioner has no legal and/or statutory right to claim the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the pay after completion of six months. The claim of subsistence allowance at the rate of 755 is barred by the principles of res-judicata as earlier the petitioner had already filed Special Civil Application No. 12193 of 2009 for the same relief and the same has been disposed off by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 7-12-2009. The claim of subsistence allowance at the rate of 755 is barred by the principles of res-judicata as earlier the petitioner had already filed Special Civil Application No. 12193 of 2009 for the same relief and the same has been disposed off by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 7-12-2009. (iii) The suspension period has been prolonged at the behest of the petitioner as the petitioner was in jail and criminal investigation was going on against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to 75% subsistence allowance after completion of six months. The petitioner is facing criminal trial and his suspension has already been revoked subject to outcome of the criminal trial. (iv) The petitioner is not entitled for any yearly increments, promotion, revision of pay, selection grade, higher pay scale and carrier advancement during the pendency of Criminal trial and without any legal and statutory right, over and above without material on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I say that the respondent University was established and incorporated under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Universities Act, 2004. It is engaged in imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences. 5. That the petitioner is working as a Junior Clerk. His service record is blemish. The petitioner alongwith other employees of the University involved in the criminal offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, on 31-07-2007 the petitioner was arrested by the Police for the said criminal offence and had remained in Police custody for more than 48 hours, as a result in view of the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 31-07-2007. The petitioner had remained in jail upto 22-1-2008 i.e. for a period of about 6 months and released on bail on 22-1-2008. I say that after investigation, on 24-10-2007 a Charge Sheet has been filed against the petitioner and other employees for the said offences. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A is a copy of the Charge Sheet dated 24-10-2007. the Criminal trial is pending against the petitioner and other employees for the said offences. I say that after investigation, on 24-10-2007 a Charge Sheet has been filed against the petitioner and other employees for the said offences. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A is a copy of the Charge Sheet dated 24-10-2007. the Criminal trial is pending against the petitioner and other employees for the said offences. I say that admittedly during the suspension period, the respondent University had paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of the pay. 6. I say that after release on bail on 22-01-2008, on 18-12-2008 and 13-03-2009 the petitioner requested to review the suspension. For the purpose of review of the suspension order, the respondent University by office order dated 18-07-2009, constituted a Review Committee. By letter dated 18-07-2009, constituted a Review Committee. By letter dated 18-07-2009 the petitioner was asked to furnish information regarding his criminal case and by letter dated 8-9-2009, the petitioner was asked to remain present before the Review Committee. But the petitioner did not furnish the said particulars. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner has been reviewed and by order dated 8-01-2010 the suspension order of the petitioner has been revoked and the petitioner along with other employees have been taken in service. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B is a copy of the revocation order dated 8-1-2010. 7. I say and submit that the petitioner is not entitled for the amount of subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of pay after completion of six months from suspension order till reinstatement as claimed for. In fact, the petitioner has no legal and/or statutory rights to claim subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% as the suspension has been continued/prolonged as the petitioner was in jail and criminal investigation was going on against the petitioner and the petitioner is facing criminal trial. As stated herein above upto 22-1-2008 the petitioner was in jail and by the order dated 8-1-2010 the suspension has been revoked. 8. I say that the State Government by Notification dated 6-8-2008 amended the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2008, amended that "an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so". I say that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the amended Rules. I say that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the amended Rules. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C is a copy of the amended Rules. Even to-day the petitioner is facing Criminal trial for the offence punishable under Sections406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% at this stage. It is specifically mentioned in the order of revocation dated 8-1-2010 that his suspension would be regularized subject to outcome of the Criminal case. The petitioner has given an Undertaking to that effect. 9. I say that the petitioner is not entitled for any yearly increments, promotion, revision of pay, selection grade, higher pay scale and carrier advancement etc. during the pendency of Criminal trial. Even otherwise the petitioner has no legal much less fundamental and/or statutory rights to claim yearly increments, promotion, revision of pay, selection grade, higher pay scale and carrier advancement as a matter of right. I say that the Circular dated 25-3-1991 has been cancelled by new Circular dated 6-12-2008. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 10. I deny that the action of the respondent University is illegal, arbitrary, un-reasonable and in violation of fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The allegations made herein are incorrect, ill-founded and I deny the same. The respondent craves leave to file further reply if necessary in the interest of justice." 20. Mr. Chauhan has also placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University to the draft amendment which reads as under:- "(i) The Suspension orders were made on 22-5-2006, 2-11-2006, 22-5-2006, 5-6-2006 and dated 31-7-2007 respectively. The petitioners did not challenge the suspension orders and accepted the same. Now, after a gross delay of about 4 years, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the suspension orders. The cause of action does not exists and the same is required to be rejected on the ground of gross unexplained delay of 4 years. (ii) The suspension orders dated 22-5-2006, 2-11-2006, 22-5-2006, 5-6-2006 and dated 31-7-2007 has already been revoked by revocation order dated 8-1-2010 and all the concerned employees are in service. The cause of action does not exists and the same is required to be rejected on the ground of gross unexplained delay of 4 years. (ii) The suspension orders dated 22-5-2006, 2-11-2006, 22-5-2006, 5-6-2006 and dated 31-7-2007 has already been revoked by revocation order dated 8-1-2010 and all the concerned employees are in service. (iii) The petitioner has committed serious criminal offence punishable under the provisions of Sections406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the said offence on 31-07-2007, the petitioner was arrested and remained in jail upto 22-1-2008 i.e. for about 6 months. The charge sheet dated 24-10-2007 has already been filed against the petitioner and other employees. The criminal case is pending for trial. (iv) It is open for the petitioners to challenge the suspension orders by filing substantive petitions on the grounds available to them under the law. It has nothing to do with the prayer made in this petition." 21. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ-application. 22. Mr. G.B. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed on record the Notification dated 22nd December, 2005 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the University declaring that the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971 shall be made applicable (Mutatis Mutandis) to the employees of the University. 23. Thus the Resolution of the University makes one thing clear that the petitioners are to be governed by the Rules, 1971. 24. For my purpose rule 5 of the Rules are important and should be looked into:- "5. 23. Thus the Resolution of the University makes one thing clear that the petitioners are to be governed by the Rules, 1971. 24. For my purpose rule 5 of the Rules are important and should be looked into:- "5. Suspension:- (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered by Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, Provided that, where a Government Servant against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated is suspended, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of a period of ninety days from which the Government servant was suspended, disciplinary proceedings is initiated against him, Provided further that the Government or any other authority empowered by the government by special or general order may at any time before the expiry of the said period of ninety days and after considering the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, to be recorded in writing extend the period of suspension beyond the period of ninety days without disciplinary proceeding being initiated: Provided also that such extension of suspension shall not be for a period of ninety days at a time. [Substituted vide GN/GAD NO:-GS-2004-(45)-CDR-10-2003-2225 - INQ CELL. dt. - 20-9-2004] (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial: Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority subordinate to or lower in rank than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority - (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours. (b) with effect from the date of his conviction if, in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent upon such conviction. (b) with effect from the date of his conviction if, in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent upon such conviction. Explanation :- The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed for the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. # (2A) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from @ the effective date of suspension After such review, the competent authority may pass an order either extending or revoking the suspension. The subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. The extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days, at a time. * (...) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule, shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days. + Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government Servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further enquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force with effect on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (4) Where a 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 inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority, from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (5)@ (a) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2A), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. @ [substituted vide GN/GAD No. GS-2008-(10)-CVO-122005-1077 - Inq. Cell. Dated 6-8-2008.] (b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended, in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of such suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings. (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may be at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made it or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 25. The plain reading of Rule (5) referred to above makes it clear that if an employee is arrested and is kept under detention for more than 48 hours on a criminal charge or otherwise then he would be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority. The Rule further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made will have to be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension. The Rule further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made will have to be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension. After such review, the competent authority may pass an order either extending or revoking the suspension. 26. The rule further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of the Rule, shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless the same was extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. 27. A proviso was added which came into effect from 6.08.2008 providing that no review of suspension would be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub rule (2), if the government servant continued to be under suspension at the time of the completion of 90 days of suspension and the 90 days period in that case would count from the date, the government servant detained in custody gets released from the detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority. 28. In the case in hand, the petitioner No. 4 was released on 17.07.2006. He was the first to be released on bail. So far as the other petitioners are concerned they all were released on bail in the year 2008 and the last one to be released amongst those was the petitioner No. 2 on 5.02.2008. 29. Indisputably, in the present case the orders of suspension were never taken in review at an interval of 90 days. The rule makes it abundantly clear that the order of suspension made or deemed to have been made would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless extended after review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. 30. In my view the orders of suspension became invalid within 90 days from the date of the respective suspension order. 31. Once the order of suspension is rendered invalid by a deeming fiction, the employee could not be said any longer to be under suspension. Mr. Chauhan tried to take recourse of the proviso but in my view there is not only a basic fallacy in the argument of Mr. Chauhan but the same is misleading. 31. Once the order of suspension is rendered invalid by a deeming fiction, the employee could not be said any longer to be under suspension. Mr. Chauhan tried to take recourse of the proviso but in my view there is not only a basic fallacy in the argument of Mr. Chauhan but the same is misleading. The Proviso came into force on 6th August, 2008 and that to at a time when the suspension orders were already rendered invalid in the eye of law. Once there is no order of suspension then there is no question of applying the proviso. The proviso makes it clear that the same would apply if the government servant continued to be under suspension at the time of completion of 90 days of suspension. 32. Therefore I find merit in the submission of Mr. Shah that after the initial completion of 90 days the suspension orders could not be said to have remained in force. It is true that even during that period that is when the suspension orders were rendered invalid the petitioners were in judicial custody except the petitioner No. 4 but this issue will assume significance so far as calculating the benefits of such period is concerned. 33. I am of the view that at least till the date each of the petitioners remained in judicial custody they are not entitled to any monetary benefits of that period despite the fact that the order of suspension had lapsed having become invalid. At the same time the petitioners are entitled to the salary for the period from the date they were released on bail till the time the suspension orders were revoked i.e. on 8th January, 2010. 34. The petitioners were always ready and willing to work after they were released from the judicial custody and therefore it could not be said that since the petitioners did not work during that period they are not entitled to the salary which otherwise they would have drawn if they would have been permitted to work. 35. I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dipak Mali, [ (2010) 2 SCC 222 ]. 35. I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dipak Mali, [ (2010) 2 SCC 222 ]. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules, 1965 which appears to be pari materia to rule 5 of the Rules, 1971. The Supreme Court made the following observations which I may quote hereinbelow:- "10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the respondent and when the petitioners' case came up for review on 22-10-2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days. 11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension." 36. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension." 36. I may also quote with profit a decision of this Court in the case of Dipendra Keshavlal Mehta v. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (2) G.L.H. 428 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court made the following observations:- "6.1. By introducing the amendment in the said Rule 5(1)(a) of the said Rules by the amending Rules of 2004, it is now provided that where the power of suspension has been exercised by the competent authority on account of disciplinary proceedings against the employee being contemplated or pending, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of period of 90 days from the date from which the Government servant was suspended, disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him. By further proviso it is provided that the Government or any other authority empowered by the Government by special or general order may at any time before the expiry of the said period of 90 days and after considering special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, to be recorded in writing, extend the period of suspension beyond the period of 90 days without disciplinary proceedings being initiated. Here also, it is further provided that such extension of suspension shall not be for a period of 90 days at a time. 7. It can, therefore, be clearly seen that prior to the amendments being brought into the said rules by the amending rules of 2004, it was open for the competent authority as specified in Rule 5(1) of the said Rules to place a Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending without any limitation or restrictions except for the limited safeguard that where suspension order is passed by an authority subordinate to or lower in rank than the appointing authority, such authority was required to report forthwith to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. By introduction of the amendments in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of the said Rules, by the amending rules of 2004, what is sought to be introduced by the Government is a further safeguard in favour of the employee that in a case where the suspension order has been passed by the competent authority on the ground of disciplinary proceeding being contemplated against the concerned employee, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of a period of 90 days from the date from which the Government servant was suspended, disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him. The use of the language "suspension shall not be valid" leaves no room for doubt that the said rule is mandatory in nature and the only consequence of non-initiation of the disciplinary proceedings within the aforesaid period of 90 days would be to invalidate suspension order of the employee concerned. Here also, however, proviso lays down that the Government or any other authority empowered by the Government by special or general order may at any time before the expiry of the said period of 90 days, after considering the special circumstances for not initiating the disciplinary proceedings, to be recorded in writing, extend the period of suspension beyond the period of 90 days without disciplinary proceedings being initiated. Such an extension, however, shall not be for a period of 90 days at a time. 7.1. The sum total of the amended provisions of Rule 5(1)(a) of the said Rules so far as it concerns the present case is that, (I) The authorities empowered under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the said Rules may place a Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated. (II) In such a case, however, suspension order shall not be valid unless before the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date from which the Government servant was suspended, disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him. (III) The above eventuality of invalidating the suspension order can be saved provided the suspension has been extended beyond the period of 90 days. (III) The above eventuality of invalidating the suspension order can be saved provided the suspension has been extended beyond the period of 90 days. Such extension, however, has to be (a) By the Government or any other authority empowered by the Government by special or general order, (b) by an order passed at any time before the expiry of such period of 90 days, (c) passed after considering the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings to be recorded in writing (d) to extend the period of suspension beyond the period of 90 days without initiation of disciplinary proceedings and (e) such extension of suspension shall not be for a period of 90 days at a time." 37. The respondent-University shall calculate the arrears towards the salary for the period enumerated above and shall make the necessary payment to each of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. It is clarified that while calculating the requisite amount, the amount paid by the University towards subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% shall be adjusted. 38. In view of the above, the issue as regards the subsistence allowance would now not survive. It could be said that the petitioner have been granted much higher relief then the difference towards 25% of the subsistence allowance. 39. In the result, these petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.