ORDER : By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the suspension order, dated Nil, issued by the 2nd respondent suspending the petitioner from service from 01.03.2016 for three months and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages including yearly increments. 3. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Secretary in the 2nd respondent bank, was issued with suspension orders, dated 13.03.2015, 01.12.2015 and 01.03.2016. He made a representation to the 1st respondent, on 10.03.2016, but, till date, no order has been passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is in prolonged suspension, without any show cause notice or enquiry. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed seeking to revoke the suspension with all benefits. 4. Mr. K. Thiruvengadam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been kept under suspension from 01.03.2016; even that three months period is over on 01.06.2016 itself. Thereafter, he was not allowed to join duty. In this regard, he has made a representation to the 1st respondent, on 10.03.2016, but, till date, no order has been passed. He would further add that during the period of suspension, the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance, which is a manifest illegality, therefore, the very suspension order lacks merit. He would further submit that the issue of order of suspension cannot be prolonged continuously for long time, as per the well settled legal position enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another passed in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 dated 16.02.2015. He would further submit that the issue of order of suspension cannot be prolonged continuously for long time, as per the well settled legal position enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another passed in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 dated 16.02.2015. He would also contend that pursuant to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (cited supra), the Government also has issued a circular in Letter No.13519/N/2015-1, dated 23.07.2015 for implementation of the direction issued by the Apex Court, wherein, the Apex Court while fixing limitation on the period of suspension had directed as follows:- (i) The currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; (ii) If the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. The Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are therefore requested to follow the directions ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the limitations in the period of suspension in letter and spirit.” He would further add that though, the prayer in this Writ Petition is for a larger relief, he is restricting his claim and he would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider his representation and appropriate orders are passed. 5. Mr. R. Bala Ramesh, the learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents, has got no objection in issuing the direction as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension order expired on 01.06.2016 itself, further, the petitioner has restricted his prayer, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the 1st respondent, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.03.2016, and to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 3 CTC 119 (SC), Ajay Kumar Chaudry vs. Union of India and also as per Rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.