IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4915 of 2010. Date of decision: 31.12.2010. Puran Chand Sharma . … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another. … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. G.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J This is posted as Range Officer, was placed under suspension by the respondents on 18.3.2009 vide office order dated 18.3.209. He made a representation to respondent No. 2 to revoke his suspension and reinstate him since, more then 90 days had elapsed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. My attention has been drawn to the provisions of Central Civil Services, Rules 10 (6) and 7 as inserted vide Notification dated 23.12.2003 w.e.f. 2.6.2004. These rules are applicable to the petitioner also, as admitted by learned Assistant Advocate General. These provisions were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Dipak Mali (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 222, in which after considering these provisions, their lordships has held as under: “11……….. In this case, what is important is that by operation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it become invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension.” 3. The above decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case and the suspension order passed by the respondents, which is not reviewed within a period of 90 days was not valid and is liable to be revoked accordingly. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential reliefs of re-instatement after the completion of 90 days of suspension order, which are admissible to him, as per rules. The petition is allowed, accordingly. No orders as to costs. Copy Dasti. (V.K. Ahuja) Judge December 31st, 2010 (KRS)