ORDER 1. Application for substitution of deceased respondent No.1 is allowed subject to all just exceptions by condoning the delay and setting aside abatement. Application for deletion of the name of proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is allowed at the risk of the appellant - Bank. Office to amend the title accordingly. 2. We have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Bank and Shri Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1. We have also had the benefit of the assistance of Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsels who assisted the Court until such time that the learned counsel for the L.Rs. of deceased respondent No.1 became available. 3. The matter has been referred to a three judge Bench on a notion that there is a difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches (Two Judges Bench) of this Court in the case of Andhra Bank vs . W.T. Seshachalam , (2004) 2 SCC 287 and Punjab National Bank & Anr. vs. Bernard Lakra, Civil Appeal No.4386 of 2002 decided on September 18, 2008. 4. We have considered the facts of the present case wherein the First Information Reports (FIRs) against the accused respondent No.1, who is no more and is represented by his legal heirs, had been quashed by the High Court. 5. In Andhra Bank (supra), the question was as to whether an acquitted accused who gets the benefit of full salary after one year of suspension would be at an advantage to another delinquent in whose case it has been decided not to go ahead with the prosecution. 6. In Punjab National Bank (supra) the facts on which the case was decided were centered round the pendency of an appeal against the conviction and the question of what benefits would flow from an acquittal was not answered or dealt with by the Bench. 7. In the present case, as already noticed, the facts are wholly different inasmuch as it is not a case where the outside agency had decided not to prosecute or where the delinquent employee had suffered a conviction. The present is a case, as already stated, where the FIRs against the employee had been quashed by the High court. 8. 7. In the present case, as already noticed, the facts are wholly different inasmuch as it is not a case where the outside agency had decided not to prosecute or where the delinquent employee had suffered a conviction. The present is a case, as already stated, where the FIRs against the employee had been quashed by the High court. 8. If that is so, we do not see how the respondent - employee and now his legal heirs would not be entitled to the benefit of full pay after one year of suspension order(s) to which effect had already been passed on the previous date i.e. 6 th December, 2018 which order was, however, without prejudice to the contentions arising in the appeal. The said contentions having been answered by us in the aforesaid manner we direct the appellant - Bank to pay the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.1 the balance of the amount due i.e. half salary after one year of suspension until his reinstatement which was made by the Bank. The amount now paid in the peculiar facts of the case will, however, not carry any interest. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.