U.Durga Prasad Rao, J.

The challenge in this writ petition at the instance of petitioners, is the order dated 11.03.2014 in O.A.No.5778 of 2012 passed by learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant from 29.05.2009 to 02.11.2011 as on duty with all consequential benefits and also release the increments by passing necessary orders within six weeks from the date of the order.

2. While ordering notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.A.No.1432 of 2014.

3. The 1st respondent herein filed O.A.No.5778 of 2012. His case is that he has been working as Telugu Pandit GradeII. He received suspension orders from the 4th and 5th respondents/petitioner Nos.4 and 5 herein on the ground he was involved in a criminal case. Immediately he approached higher authorities by way of appeal but in vain. Thereafter, he filed O.A.No.8065 of 2011. The Tribunal vide its order dated 29.09.2011 allowed the said OA by setting aside the suspension order dated 20.08.2009 and directed the respondents to reinstate him into service. Pursuant to the said direction, the 4th respondent reinstated him into service by his order dated 31.10.2011. However, the respondent authorities have not taken any action for payment of salary for the suspension period i.e. from 29.05.2009 to 02.11.2011 and his representation dated 08.06.2012 did not yield any fruitful result. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.5778 of 2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to treat his suspension period i.e. from 29.05.2009 to 02.11.2011 as on duty and regulate his pay and allowances. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A. following the orders passed in O.A.No.6622 of 2012 dated 05.02.2013 and directed the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty with all consequential benefits.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that 1st respondent was involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.50 of 2009 under Sections 498A, 384, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 3 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni. Basing on the report of SI of Police, Adoni, Town Police Station III, the DEO, Kurnool placed him under suspension w.e.f. 29.05.2009 under Rule 8(1) of APCS (CCA) Rules. Then, the applicant approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.8065 of 2011 seeking to suspend the proceedings of DEO. The Tribunal vide its order dated 29.09.2011 allowed the OA. Pursuant to the same, the DEO, Kurnool reinstated him into service. Whileso, the 1st respondent/applicant made an application for payment of salary for the suspension period and he also filed O.A.No.5778 of 2012 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 08.06.2012 for release of salary for the suspension period. The Tribunal without proper appreciation of facts allowed the O.A. and in view of provision under FR 54 (5) of A.P. Fundamental Rules and as per Government Memo No. 2801/PE.Vig.I (2)/2010 dated 19.11.2010 the applicant is not entitled for treatment of suspension period as duty.

5. Heard arguments of learned Government Pleader for Services-I (AP) and Sri A.Surya Rao, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

6. Learned Government Pleader would argue that the Tribunal allowed O.A.No.5778/2012 on the observation that the said O.A is covered by the orders earlier passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6622/2012 dated 05.02.2013. No doubt, O.A.No.6622/2012 which was factually similar to the present O.A, was allowed by the Tribunal following the ratio laid down in O.A.No.1891/2007 and batch. The ratio in the said batch was to the effect that when the applicant was suspended for involvement in the criminal case and when the criminal case was ended in acquittal, he is entitled for treatment of period of absence as on duty and also en