JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Dass, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for all the respondents. 2. While the petitioner was serving as Superintending Engineer (Civil) in HQ-763 BRTF (GREF) Project Vartak, on the ground of possessing hard cash of Rs.15,03,000/-, which was considered to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner, investigation was carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Guwahati and in connection with the said investigation, the petitioner was detained under the custody of CBI w.e.f. 20.03.2013 for a period exceeding 48(forty-eight) ours and resultantly, the under Secretary to the Government of India passed an order dated 05.04.2013 recording that the petitioner was deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. the date of detention, i.e. 20.03.2013, in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [for short, “CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965”]. 3. The order of suspension was continued by an order dated 03.09.2013 and challenging the said order dated 03.09.2013, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.2170/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.06.2015. 4. Perusal of the said order dated 03.06.2015 goes to show that though the petitioner had made number of prayers in the said writ petition, save and except the legality and validity of the order dated 03.09.2013, other prayers were not pressed. 5. Holding that the respondents did not review the order of suspension within 180(one hundred eighty) days, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India -Vs- Dipak Mali, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222 and the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, order dated 03.09.2013 and also the subsequent order of extension of suspension dated 24.12.2013 were set aside with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. 18.06.2013 within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. Direction was also issued to the respondents to take a decision with regard to the treating of the period of suspension of the petitioner beyond 17.06.2013 till the date of his reinstatement as per law within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The petitioner submitted a representation on 12.06.2015 along with a copy of the aforesaid order dated 03.06.2015 of this Court passed in WP(C) No.2170/2014. 6. As the petitioner was not reinstated in service, alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court dated 03.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No.2170/2014, the petitioner approached this Court in contempt jurisdiction by filing a contempt case, which was registered as Cont. Case (C) No.594/2015. The incumbents holding the posts of the Secretary, Boarder Roads Development Board and the Director General, Boarder Roads Organization were the opposite parties in the said contempt application. 7. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India had appeared in the said contempt case. The contempt petition was closed taking note of the submissions of Mr. Keyal. It will be appropriate to reproduce herein below the relevant portion of the order dated 28.09.2015, by which the contempt case was closed. The order reads as follows:- “Mr Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Border Roads Organization, Government of India has passed an order dated 24.08.2015, revoking the order of suspension w.e.f. 18.06.2013. He has further made a submission before the Court that legal consequence of this order would be that the period of suspension of the petitioner would stand regularized and he would be entitled to the salary due for the said period minus any subsistence allowance paid for the said period. Submissions made by Mr Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General has been taken note of. In view of the above, Court is of the view that order of this Court has been complied with. Accordingly, contempt petition stands closed.” 8. The order dated 24.08.2015, which finds mention in the order dated 28.09.2015 reads as follows:- “ORDER WHEREAS, an order placing Shri Ram Milan, SE (Civ) (GO No.2092W) under suspension was made by the President on 05/04/2013. 2. Accordingly, contempt petition stands closed.” 8. The order dated 24.08.2015, which finds mention in the order dated 28.09.2015 reads as follows:- “ORDER WHEREAS, an order placing Shri Ram Milan, SE (Civ) (GO No.2092W) under suspension was made by the President on 05/04/2013. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, the President in pursuance of Judgment Order dated 03 June, 2015 delivered by Hon’ble High Court Guwahati in WP(C) No.2170/2014 and in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 10(5)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby revokes the said order of suspension with effect from 18/06/2013.” 9. The petitioner had submitted another representation on 28.10.2015 [Annexure-P/13 (Colly)] contending that he is entitled to be treated to be on duty for all purposes w.e.f. 18.06.2013 and that he would also be entitled to full pay and allowances for the intervening period, i.e. from 18.06.2013 to 20.09.2015. 10. Mr. Borah has submitted that the petitioner received his salary from 21.09.2015 onwards and, therefore, prayer was made for payment of salary from 18.06.2013 to 20.09.2015 in the said representation. 11. On 21.01.2016, prayer made by the petitioner in the representation dated 28.10.2015 was rejected by the Under Secretary to the Government of India. The order dated 21.01.2016, which is put to challenge in the writ petition, reads as under:- “ORDER 1. WHEREAS, Shri Ram Milan, SE (Civ) (GO No.2092W), while functioning as Commander of 763 BRTF (Project) Vartak was arrested by CBI, ACB, Guwahati at Guwahati Railway Station with hard cash of Rs.15,03,000/- and detained under the custody of CBI Guwahati wef 20 Mar 2013 for a period exceeding forty eight hours. 2. WHEREAS, Shri Ram Milan, SE (Civ) was deemed to have been suspended wef 20 Mar 2013 under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide Order No.BRDB/02(73)/2013/GE-II dated 05 Apr 2013. 3. WHEREAS, the Competent Authority in pursuance of Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati Order dated 3.6.2015 in WP(C) No.2170/2014 revoked suspension of Shri Ram Milan vide Order No.BRDB/02(73)/2013-GE-II dated 24 Aug 2013 and gave notice vide letter of even No. Dated 5.11.2015 to Sh. Ram Milan calling his representation regarding Pay & Allowances. 4. WHEREAS, Shri Ram Milan vide his representation dated 28.10.2015 has inter-alia stated that full payment wef 18.06.2013 to 20.09.2015 may be made after adjusting subsistence allowance. 5. Ram Milan calling his representation regarding Pay & Allowances. 4. WHEREAS, Shri Ram Milan vide his representation dated 28.10.2015 has inter-alia stated that full payment wef 18.06.2013 to 20.09.2015 may be made after adjusting subsistence allowance. 5. WHEREAS, the above said proposed amount under FR-54B is an ad-hoc arrangement, final decision on his pay & allowances during his suspension will be taken subject to outcome of CBI Court case No.RC 4(A)/2013-GWH. 6. NOW, THEREFORE, the Competent Authority after considering the representation dated 28.10.2015 has ordered that:- (i) Not to treat the period of suspension w.e.f. 18.6.2013 to 23.8.2015 as on duty. (ii) The quantum of pay & allowances for the period wef 18.6.2013 to the date of revocation of suspension i.e. 23.8.2015 may be treated equal to the payment of subsistence allowance already paid to the Officer during period from 18.6.2013 to 23.8.2015.” 12. It appears that subsequent to the passing of the order dated 21.01.2016, the petitioner again filed a contempt case being Cont. Case (C) No.98/2016 and this Court by an order dated 17.06.2016 closed the said contempt case giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the legality and validity of the order dated 21.01.2016 in an appropriate proceeding. 13. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Joint Director (Administration) in the present writ petition on behalf of the respondents, stand is taken that suspension of the petitioner was fully justified in view of the misconduct of the petitioner and that the pay and allowances presently allowed to the petitioner is an interim measure subject to final outcome of the CBI Court Case No.RC 4(A)/2013-GWH pending against him. 14. The short and precise submission of Mr. Borah is that subject matter of the writ petition is not the pay and allowances that the petitioner will be entitled to during the period of suspension from 20.03.2013 to 17.06.2013, which may be subject to the outcome of the CBI case. He has articulated that the grievance of the petitioner is the refusal of the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in gross violation of the order of this Court for almost 2(two) years until the order dated 24.08.2015 was passed. He submits that the decision of the respondents not to treat the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015 as on duty cannot be sustained under any circumstances. He submits that the decision of the respondents not to treat the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015 as on duty cannot be sustained under any circumstances. As the petitioner had been unjustifiably deprived of discharging his duties despite the order of this Court, he would be entitled to payment of full salary and allowances, he submits. 15. Abiding by the stand taken in the affidavit and the order dated 21.01.2016, Ms. Dass has submitted that having regard to the misconduct of the petitioner, the petitioner will not be entitled to pay and allowances for the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015. 16. It is to be noted that the order dated 03.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No.2170/2014 was not put to challenge by way of an appeal in any appellate forum. The order of this Court dated 03.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No.2170/2014, as such, had attained finality. In the order dated 21.06.2016, in Paragraph 6(i), the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015 was considered to be a period of suspension. This observation is, ex-facie, wrong, in view of the order of this Court dated 03.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No.2170/2014, whereby this Court had quashed the extension orders dated 03.09.2014 and 24.12.2013 with a direction to reinstate the petitioner within 1(one) month w.e.f. 18.06.2013. By not reinstating the petitioner within the period, as aforesaid, w.e.f. 18.06.2013, the respondents had sought to overreach the order of this Court, which is impermissible in law. The respondents had the liberty to assail the order of this Court dated 03.06.2015, but they cannot take law into their hands and arbitrarily and unauthorisedly refuse to reinstate the petitioner for almost 2(two) years. The petitioner cannot be penalised for dereliction and arbitrary action on the part of the respondent authorities in not reinstating the petitioner. In this context, it will also be relevant to note that the Assistant Solicitor General of India had also conceded to the position as reflected in the order dated 28.09.2015 passed in Cont. Case (C) No.594/2015 that the legal consequence of the order dated 24.08.2015 would be that the period of suspension of the petitioner would stand regularised and that he would be entitled to salary due for the said period minus subsistence allowance paid for the said period. 17. Case (C) No.594/2015 that the legal consequence of the order dated 24.08.2015 would be that the period of suspension of the petitioner would stand regularised and that he would be entitled to salary due for the said period minus subsistence allowance paid for the said period. 17. In view of the above discussion, the decision of the respondents not to treat the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015 as on duty, requires interference in the interest of justice. Consequently, the order dated 21.01.2016 is interfered with and it is ordered that the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015 shall be counted as on duty and that the petitioner will be entitled to pay and allowances for the period from 18.06.2013 to 23.08.2015. As the petitioner had been paid salary only from 21.09.2015, the petitioner shall also be paid his salary for the period from 24.08.2015 to 20.09.2015. Payment for the period from 18.06.2013 to 20.09.2015 shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order by the respondents. 18. Needless to say, the amount of subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner, shall necessarily be deducted while computing the pay and allowances to be paid now in terms of this judgment and order. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No cost.