I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 01.08.2009, passed, in WP(C) No. 80/2001, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside and quashed the order, dated 06.11.99, whereby the respondent herein was placed under suspension and also the Memorandum, dated 01.02.2001. By the judgment, under appeal, the learned Single Judge has issued further direction that the appellants herein shall pay to the respondent the balance amount of subsistence allowance as per the salary, which the respondent has not been paid since the time of his suspension and that the respondent shall also be paid his salary and allowances as per the revised pay scale.

2. The facts, relevant for disposal of the appeal and discernible from the materials on record, are, in brief, thus: By Memorandum dated 06.11.1999, issued by the appellant No. 2, namely, Executive Officer, Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), the respondent while serving as an Assistant Organizer (Khadi), was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding to be drawn against him mentioning therein that the order of suspension was based in exercise of powers conferred by sub-para 4(c) of Para 13 of the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board's Regulation, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation') making it clear that during the period of suspension, the respondent shall be entitled to half of the average pay and other allowances as may be admissible. The suspension of the respondent was followed by lodging of a First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), on 15.11.1999, by the appellant No. 2, namely, Executive Officer of the Board and, based on this FIR, West Agartala Police Station Case No. 164/1999, under Section 409 IPC, was registered against the respondent, the informant's allegations against the writ petitioner-respondent being that the respondent had committed criminal breach of trust by appropriating the articles, kept stored and valued at Rs. 26,46,701.80/-, while the respondent was holding the said property entrusted to him by the Board as an employee of the Board. Pursuant to the registration of the case, as described hereinbefore, the respondent was taken into custody and he remained in custody for a period of fifty-five days in connection with the said case. The respondent made a representation to the appellant No. 2, namely, Executive Officer of the Board, seeking increase in his subsistence allowance and for giving him the benefit of revised pay scale inasmuch as the pay scale, applicable to the respondent, had, in the meanwhile, been enhanced with effect from 01.01.1996. But the Executive Officer issued an order, dated 01.02.2001, conveying to the respondent to the effect that the respondent's prayer for increase, in the rate of subsistence allowance, could not be considered as the delay in initiating the departmental proceeding was directly attributable to the respondent. However, the departmental enquiry has not yet been started.

3. By filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 80/2001, aforementioned, the respondent herein put to challenge the order of suspension passed on 06.11.1999 and also the Memorandum, dated 01.02.2001, whereby request for increase in the respondent's subsistence allowance was declined. The respondent also prayed, in the writ petition, for a direction to be issued to the appellants herein to increase the respondent's subsistence allowance and to provide him with the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 5,500-10,700/- with effect from 01.01.1996. Aggrieved by the fact that the writ petition has been allowed, as mentioned above, this appeal has been preferred.

4. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. P. Ray Barman, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. The questions of law, which the presen