THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26627 of 2011 Dated:26.09.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Finance (Admn.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And S.John Wesley and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26627 of 2011 ORDER OF THE ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and two others against the order dated 22.11.2010 in O.A.No.3467 of 2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was filed by the first respondent herein (hereafter, the applicant) assailing the Government Memo dated 29.07.2005 treating the period of applicant’s suspension from 20.05.1995 to 17.04.1999 (the first spell) and from 30.08.2000 to 07.06.2001 (the second spell) as a duty for the purpose of salary, increments and pay fixation. The applicant filed W.P.No.23674 of 2011 challenging the same order. This Bench dismissed the same on 23.08.2011 observing as under. The Fundamental Rule 54 empowers the competent authority to determine whether such period should be treated as period on duty or otherwise. It is the duty of the competent authority to determine whether the period of suspension of the petitioner herein should be treated as duty period and if so, whether to treat the same as duty period for all purposes or for any specified purpose. The Tribunal considered that it would be just and proper to treat the period of suspension for two spells as period on duty for the purpose of release of increment, for the purpose of seniority and for the purpose of pensionery benefits. The Tribunal, however, considered that it would not be appropriate to hold that the petitioner was entitled to salary for the period of suspension except for the subsistence allowance, which the petitioner apparently had already drawn. There is no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is judicious, reasonable and is on merits. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, which treated the period of absence as duty period for the purpose of increments, seniority and pensionary benefits, but not treating the same for the purpose of arrears of salary. Accordingly, we see no merits in this writ petition. For the same reason, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The learned Tribunal exercised sound discretion in treating the period of suspension during the two spells as a duty for the purpose of increment, seniority and pensionery benefits, but denied the applicant the salary for the period of suspension. The order of the learned Tribunal is in tune with FR 54 and cannot be faulted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 26.09.2011 KH