The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1971, which required the review of suspension orders at an interval of 90 days and held that the suspension orders became invalid within 90 days from the date of the respective suspension order as they were not reviewed at the specified interval.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the issues for my consideration arising in all the captioned writ-applications are the same those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The Special Civil Application 14823 of 2010 is treated as the lead matter.

3. The petitioners before me are all employees of the respondent No. 1, Anand Agricultural University. Some of those are in service while others have attained superannuation. They have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"A) Direct the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of pay after completion of six months from suspension order till reinstatement date.

B) Direct the respondents to pay the petitioners subsequent benefits i.e. yearly increments even during suspension period grant promotions after reinstatement order, revision of pay scale i.e. selection grade Higher Pay Scale i.e. selection grade Higher Pay Scale, revision of new pay scale (including benefit of career advancement to the teachers)."

4. The facts of the case may be summarized as under:-

5. All the petitioners serving with the respondent No. 1 - University were arrested by the Police in connection with a loan scam. They were arrested in connection with an offence registered with the Vidyanagar Police Station, District-Anand, vide C.R. No. I-111/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 120B, 471, 466 and 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Out of the five petitioners four petitioners were arrested some time in the year 2006 and one was arrested some time in the year 2007. After each of the petitioners was arrested by the Police the University passed separate orders of suspension.

7. The chart below provides the necessary details.

8. Thus, it appears that each of the petitioners remained in judicial custody for a period of about two years from the date of their arrest. The investigation also culminated in filing of the charge-sheet. The prosecution against them is pending as on today in the criminal Court at Anand.

9. It is also very clear that no sooner they were arrested and remained in custody for a period accepting 48 hours then they were deemed to have been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1971 for short (the Rules, 1971). However, individual orders of suspension were passed against each of the petitioners referred to above.

10. The dispute raised in this writ-application is with regard to the subsistence allowance and the validity of the order of suspension.

11. It is also not in dispute that while the petitioners were under suspension they were being paid the subsistence allowances at the rate of 50%. However, it is the case of the petitioners that they should have been paid at the rate of 75% on the expiry of the first six months of the suspension.

12. The second issue raised is with regard to the validity of the order of suspension since the orders of suspension were not taken in review at an interval of 90 days in accordance with the sub rule 2(A) of rule 5 of the Rules, 1971.

13. Mr. G.B. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the rules provide that the suspension order shall be reviewed by the competent authority before expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. He submitted that the rules also provide that the suspension order shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period. Mr. Shah pointed out that the State Government vide its Resolution No. CVO-122005-1077-TA dated 20th July, 2007 has clarified that if the authority fails to review the order of suspension within the prescribed time limit then in that case the responsibility of that authority would have to be fixed.

14. Mr. Shah submitted that his client preferred representations to the respondent No. 1 bringing it to their notice the relevant rules but of no avail.

15. Mr. Shah submitted that in