WP(C) 6034/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA In the garb of claiming arrear salary, increments and other service bene fits for the period of 9 (nine) years, the petitioner has virtually challenged t he order dated 30.4.1993 (Annexure R/3 to the counter affidavit), by filling the instant writ petition on 8.11.2010, which is nearly 17 years from the date of t he said order. That apart, there is also no disclosure of the said order dated 30.4.1993 and the copy of the same has not been annexed to the writ petition. W hile claiming the arrear salary, the petitioner has also not brought on record t he order dated 9.3.2000 (Annexure- R/5 to the counter affidavit) by which he was placed under suspension and also the Annexure R/6 dated 26.6.2000, by which he was provided with subsistence allowance initially @ 50% and thereafter @ 75%. The writ petition has been filed after 10 years of the said two orders. I have heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. By the aforesaid Annexure R/3 order dated 30.4.1993, it was provided that the p etitioner would not be entitled to any pay except the subsistence allowance that was paid to him, there was also provision for recovery of the amount of Rs. 742 7/- for causing pecuniary loss to Government. The petitioner accepted the said o rder and made no challenge to the same and now after 17 years of the said order, has filed the instant writ petition claiming arrear salary for the period of su spension. There is no explanation whatsoever towards explaining the delay. Moreo ver, there is also suppression of material fact by not mentioning the said order dated 30.4.1993. The writ petition has been filed giving the colour of inaction on the part of the respondents in not providing him full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. As regards the 2nd order of suspension that was passed in 2000, there is nothing to indicate that any order was passed towards regularizing the period of suspen sion. The aforementioned two orders dated 9.3.2000 and 26.6.2000 speak of placin g the petitioner under suspension and providing him subsistence allowance @ 50% and 75% respectively as per provisions of FR-53. In the counter affidavit, there is nothing to indicate that any departmental proceeding was initiated against t he petitioner and / or the period of suspension was regularized in any manner. In view of the above, so far as the 2nd period of suspension is concerned i.e. 9 .3.2000 to 22.7.2003, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order. Let the appropriate order be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably with in three months. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed off, without however, an y order as to costs.