Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Pushilal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P. Gogoi, learned CGC for the respondents. By way of this writ petition, petitioners seek quashing of orders dated 06.08.2009 and other related orders and for a direction to the respondents to treat the suspension period of late P. Chandra Mouli and Sri Kishan Chand as on duty to entitle them to receive their retirement benefits.

2. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 P. Chandra Mouli expired and he is represented by his legal heirs.

3. Case of the petitioners is that they were members of GREF, which is a part of the armed forces of the Union. On 15.12.1979 they had agitated before the Chief Engineer, Project Vartak. Several participants of the agitating group were taken into custody, including the petitioners.

4. Following their arrest on 15.12.1979, orders were passed under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 declaring them to have been put under deemed suspension from the date of their arrest. Petitioners were released on bail on 29.08.1980 after spending about 8 and 1/2 months in jail.

5. Petitioners were tried in General Court Martial proceedings, at the end of which they were found guilty of the charges framed against them. The petitioners were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for periods of 30 months and 18 months respectively. Such conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners were challenged by them in Court. Following the order of the Court, the sentence imposed on the petitioners were modified to the period undergone. Remission of the un-served sentence was granted. Thus, while the conviction of the petitioners were not disturbed, the sentences were modified to the period they remained in custody from 15.12.1979 to 29.08.1980.

6. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioners. Thus, petitioner No. 1 was given compulsory retirement on 19.12.1994 whereas petitioner No. 2 was given compulsory retirement on 23.03.1995. The respondents further decided to treat the period from 29.08.1980, which is the date of release of the petitioners from custody, to the respective dates of compulsory retirement, as "dies-non".

7. Aggrieved by the decision to treat the period from their release till their compulsory retirement as "dies-non", petitioner No. 1 had instituted WP (C) No. 371/2002 and petitioner No. 2 had instituted WP (C) No. 1392/2005 before this Court. Both the cases were heard together by this Court and by a common judgment and order dated 05.01.2009, this Court quashed the impugned decision on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before the order of "dies-non" was passed against them. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners.

8. Following the above order of this Court, Chief Engineer Project Vartak acting as the disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice to the petitioner No. 1 on 05.03.2009 as to why the period of his suspension should not be treated as "dies-non". Similar show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner No. 2 on 17.03.2009. In response to such show-cause notices, petitioners submitted reply. Thereafter, Chief Engineer, Project Vartak passed order dated 04.05.2009 holding that period of suspension will not be treated as period spent on duty and will be treated as "dies-non" for all purposes including pension. Likewise, Chief Engineer, Eastern Base Workshop (GREF), acting as the disciplinary authority, passed the order dated 28.05.2009 similarly holding that period of suspension of petitioner No. 2 will not be treated as period spent on duty and will be treated as "dies-non" for all purposes including pension.

9. Petitioners preferred appeal before the Director General Bo