In the absence of specific rules or terms of contract governing suspension, an employee is entitled to full wages during the period of suspension.

1. Heard both sides. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.31463 of 2006.

2. The petitioner had filed O.A.No.9975 of 1997, challenging an order of the first respondent, dated 28. 1997 and the connected proceedings of the second respondent, dated 210. 1997.

3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that he will not be paid wages for the period from 28.06.1991 to 12.01.1995 being the period under which he was kept under suspension. He was told that the fundamental rules will not apply to part time village assistants and therefore, his request for grant of wages was rejected.

4. The petitioner was employed as a Thalaiyari in the Keezhathiruvengadanathapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk since the year 1958. Subsequently, the post was redesignated as a Village servant and further, renamed as Village Assistant. The post of Village Assistant was governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and were known as Tamil Nadu Village Servant Service Rules, 1980. Under Rule 13 of the said rules, the age of superannuation was fixed as 60 years. Under Rule 15, it was stated that the fundamental rules and Tamil Nadu Leave Rules are not applicable to these posts.

5. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.09.1991 for having got involved in a criminal case in Crime No.153/1991, Moolakaraipatti Police Station in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC and that he was in the custody from 28.06.1991.

6. The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.4 in the criminal case. After trial in Sessions Case No.432/1993, the petitioner was acquitted, by a judgment dated 112. 1994.

7. Pursuant to the acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 11. 1995. However, the petitioner was not paid salary from the date of suspension till he was restored to service. Therefore, the petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal, seeking for salary since his appeal to the respondent was negatived. Therefore, the short question that arises for determination is that notwithstanding non application of fundamental rules, whether the petitioner is entitled for wages for the period he was kept under unemployment.

8. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 211. 1998. In paragraph 6 of the reply affidavit, it has been averred as follows:

"6. ... it is submitted that the applicant was appointed as Village Servant which was governed by Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 and the post was purely on part time basis. Hence, the individual could not be considered as a Government servant and provisions of Fundamental Rules will not apply to him. The part time employees are not eligible for the grant of subsistence allowance. The individual was not granted any subsistence allowance for his suspension since he is not a regular full time Government Servant. He has been paid only consolidated amount during his service. The services of the Village Servants has been now brought to regular establishment and they have been made as full time Government servants only with effect from 6. 95 as per G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 7. 95. Further, the Village Servants prior to the above said Government Order were not eligible for any leave and they could be granted leave only on loss of pay. Hence, the period of absence of the Village servant in which he was under suspension could not be treated as duty as the provisions of Fundamental Rule will not apply to him as he was only a part time Village Assistant at that time."

9. In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court, which will have a bearing on this issue. It is well settled that if an employee, who is not governed by any Rules or terms of contract of employment but kept under suspension by the employer and if the terms of contract do not provide for temporary suspensio