JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Union of India and its officers in the Ministry of Defence against the judgment and order “dated 1st September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition (S) No.2569 of 2005, dismissing the same. The respondent, who was working as a Civilian Motor Driver-II In the establishment of the Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (Armaments) in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002. Under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification dated 23rd December, 2003, Sub-Rules (6) and (7) were inserted. As the same are relevant to the facts of this case, the same are extracted herein below :

“(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the date of order of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purposes and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty dates at a time.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules 5, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.”

2. The aforesaid amendment carne into effect from 2nd June, 2004, but as a Review Committee was not constituted, the respondent’s suspension was not reviewed as required by the amended Rules. The respondent, therefore, claimed that the suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed and accordingly, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.540/2004 for a declaration that the suspension order dated 10th August, 2002, became invalid on the expiry of 90 days from the date on which Sub-Rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 came into force, since the same had not been extended by the Review Committee.

3. There is no dispute that the suspension of the respondent was not extended. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the application filed by the respondent and by its order dated 29th March, 2005, quashed the suspension order dated 10th August, 2002. The said order of the Tribunal was questioned before the High Court on the ground that while Sub-Rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 came into force only on 2nd June, 2004, the application had been made prematurely in, July, 2004 even before the expiry of three months. It was contended that since the matter was subjudice on account of the pendency of the Original Application filed by the respondent before the expiry of 90 days from 2nd June, 2004, the petitioners were unable to review the respondent’s case.

4. Dealing with the said contention the High Court held that since there was no interim stay In O.A.No.540/2004 filed by the respondent, there was nothing to prevent the petitioners from reviewing the suspension within 90 days from 2nd June, 2004. On such ground the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

5. It is against the said order of the High Court that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.

6. On behalf of the Union of India, it was not denied that the amended provisions of Rule 10 came into effect from 2nd June, 2004, and that the case of the Respondent was reviewed on 20th October, 2004, beyond the period envisaged under Sub-rule (6) thereof. It was, however, contended that the delay in conducting the review was not on account of any laches on the part of the petitioners, but having regard to the fact that the Respondent filed OA No.540 of 2004, before the Central Administrative Tribunal in July, 2004, and the same was disposed of