JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This writ petition involves the following prayer: "In the circumstances the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court will graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the petitioner's pay shall not be revised w.e.f. 1.4.2006 under the O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998; AND Why the petitioner shall not be paid subsistence allowance in the revised pay w.e.f. 14.12.2005; AND Why the petitioner shall not be paid all arrear financial benefits accruing there from; AND If the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule may be made absolute, AND Issue any other writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances; AND For which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray." 2. Short background involving the case is that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation. On 14.12.2005 he was placed under suspension under Rule, 12 of the O.C.S. (C.C.A.), Rule, 1962 on contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 31.12.2005, the opposite party No. 2 issued charge-sheet against the petitioner. Ultimately disciplinary proceeding was ended with direction for recovery of certain amount as well as considering the suspension period to be treated as such. Filing the writ petition, petitioner alleged that in the 65th Meeting of the Board of the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation, the Corporation implemented O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 for all its employees but, however with effect from 1.4.2006. It is on the premises that the petitioner was facing a disciplinary proceeding through the charge-sheet dated 31.12.2005 and was placed under suspension from 14.12.2005 but, however re-instated ultimately on 7.10.2011 with the aforesaid punishment, the O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 was implemented in the case of the petitioner with effect from 7.10.2011 on the premises that petitioner though faced a disciplinary proceeding but was under suspension right from 14.12.2005 till he was reinstated by the disposal of the disciplinary proceeding on 7.10.2011. Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was continuing as an employee of the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., there was no occasion for applying O.R.S.P., Rule, 1998 involving the petitioner from 7.10.2011. Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was continuing as an employee of the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., there was no occasion for applying O.R.S.P., Rule, 1998 involving the petitioner from 7.10.2011. It is for prospective application of the benefit of O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998, Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner while claiming that the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., has adopted a discriminatory attitude by implementing such benefit O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 in case of all other employees from 1.4.2006 and giving such benefit to the petitioner with effect from 7.10.2011. In the process, Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel prayed this Court for interfering in the action of the opposite parties and issuing appropriate direction. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 while objecting the claim of the petitioner submitted that for the petitioner facing suspension with effect from 14.12.2005 and only reinstated in service with effect from 7.10.2011, on the premises of his reinstatement with effect from 7.10.2011, the period from 14.12.2005 till 6.10.2011 dies none. It is on the pretext that the petitioner was not in service and he was reinstated in service only on 7.10.2011, he has been rightly benefited with the benefits of O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 only after his reinstatement and, therefore, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties contended that there is no illegality in the matter of implementation of O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 in case of the petitioner. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds there is no dispute that on contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the opposite party No. 2 placed the petitioner under suspension on 14.12.2005 There is also no dispute that even pending disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was reinstated on 7.10.2011. It is at this stage, looking to the definition of the word "suspension" according to Oxford Dictionary this Court finds the same reads as follows: "1. the act of officially removing somebody from their job, school, team, etc. for a period of time, usually as punishment. 2. the act of delaying something for a period of time until a decision has been taken. Similarly Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition vol. the act of officially removing somebody from their job, school, team, etc. for a period of time, usually as punishment. 2. the act of delaying something for a period of time until a decision has been taken. Similarly Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition vol. 25, Art. 989 at page 518 the word "suspension" means: "Whether or not the master has power to suspend a servant during the duration of the contract of service depends upon the construction of the particular contract. In the absence of any express of implied term to the contrary, the master cannot punishes servant for alleged misconduct by suspending him from employment and stopping his wages for the period of suspension". 5. For there is no doubt that a person continues in service even While under suspension and in such situation there is only temporary cessation of work of a person during the suspension period, in no stretch of imagination it can be construed that petitioner is out of service. It is in the circumstance, taking into consideration that the petitioner was only under suspension for the period 14.12.2005 till 7.10.2011 and prevented from discharging his duty and also paid with subsistence allowance for his not doing the actual duty, he cannot be deprived of the benefit of O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 from the date as has been applied with effect from 1.4.2006 in respect of all such employees working then in the particular establishment. As a consequence, this Court while overruling the objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties, allows the writ petition with a direction to the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., to allow the benefit of O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2006. The entire entitlement of the arrear involving the period 1.4.2006 till 9.10.2011 be calculated within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner and for the unlawful deprivation of the benefit under O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998, petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ Rs. 7% per annum on such amount all through. Entire arrear along with interest be released in favour of the petitioner within a week thereafter. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. No order as to cost.