JUDGMENT PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for direction upon the respondents to give the benefit of annual increments for the period of suspension i.e. 1986-88 and his pension be fixed on the basis of such increments in pay. 2. Sans details, the facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- The petitioner, in pursuance to a disciplinary proceeding, was inflicted with five punishments, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4664 of 1996, vide Annexure-1 to the writ application. Punishment no. 1 relates to period of suspension, which indicates that Sri Naresh Mohan Singh for the period of suspension will not be paid any amount other than subsistence allowance. However, the period of suspension will be treated as duty for the purpose of the pension and gratuity. It has been stated in the writ application that the Board has issued a standing Order dated 02.06.1999, (Annexure 2), relating to grant of increments during suspension period, the relevant portion of the said is quoted herein below:- Therefore, after examining all aspects of the matter it has been decided that the respective rules regarding granting increment are modified to the following extent in pursuance of Board's Resolution No. 7427:- 1. If the disciplinary authority passes a specific order that the increments will not be earned during suspension period, then no increments will be allowed during that period. 2. If the disciplinary authority passes a punishment order but does not specifically order regarding non earring of increments during suspension period, then the annual increments will be allowed on notional basis, where no stage of E.B. falls during this period. ” Taking recourse of the aforesaid Resolution, the petitioner ventilated his grievances by filing various representations before the respondents-authorities. Since the representation of the petitioner did not evoke any gainful response, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigating his grievances. 3. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents stating therein that the Board has issued another Standing Order No. 847 dated 30.09.2003. 3. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents stating therein that the Board has issued another Standing Order No. 847 dated 30.09.2003. After examining all aspects of the matter relating to grant of increment to the employee during period of suspension, it has been decided that Board's Standing Order No. 817 dated 02.06.1999 has been withdrawn with effect from the date of its issuance, hence, no increments shall be granted for the period 1986-1988. 4. Heard Mr. Sidartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents-Board. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Annexure 8 to the reply to counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that (Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short J.S.E.B.) have adopted all the rules and orders being framed by the Bihar State Electricity board (in short B.S.E.B.) till the year 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Annexure 9, which is an information sought and obtained under R.T.I. Act by the petitioner, wherein it is specifically mentioned that Standing Order No. 847 dated 06.09.2003 has not been adopted by the J.S.E.B. Hence, it is submitted that Standing Order No. 847 dated 06.09.2003 will not be an impediment so far grant of increments during period of suspension in question is concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-Board in his usual fairness has submitted that whatever admissible dues is payable to the petitioner has been paid to be petitioner and nothing is due to be paid to the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after giving my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions, I am of opinion that the case of the petitioner has not been considered in its right prospective. Since the period of suspension of the petitioner is treated as duty, hence, on conjoint reading of punishment order relating to suspension vis-a-vis standing order at Annexure 2, which says that if the disciplinary authority passes a punishment order but does not specifically order regarding non-earning of increments during suspension period, then the annual increments will be allowed during suspension period, the petitioner is entitled for the increments during the period of suspension. Furthermore, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case that standing order no. Furthermore, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case that standing order no. 847 dated 6.09.2003 being not applicable would not stand as an impediment for grant of increment during the suspension period. 8. As a logical sequitur to the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the case of the petitioner ought to be considered in the light of Standing Order No. 817 dated 2.6.1999 (Annexure 2). Hence, the respondents are directed to give the benefit of annual increments during the period of suspension i.e. 1986-88 in accordance with standing order vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is allowed.