K. CHANDRU, J.

This is an appeal filed by the District Planning Officer, Dharmauri District and the Child Development Project Officer, Morappur, Dharmapuri District, against the order of the learned Judge dated 26.9.2005 in W.P.No. 31156 of 2005.

2. The respondent was working as an Anganwadi worker (Aaya) in Centre No. 14, Ambatapatti village, with effect from 1.11.1989 on a Non Standard Time Scale. On the basis of a complaint of dowry harassment, a First Information Report was registered against her for offences under, Section 498-A I.P.C. read with Section 312 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it is pending in Crime No. 2 of 2005 before the All Women Police Station, Arur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. She was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.1.2005 and subsequently enlarged on bail.

3. The second appellant suspended the respondent with effect from 10.1.2005, viz., the date on which she was remanded to judicial custody. It was stated that as she was kept in custody for over 48 hours after her arrest, the deemed order of suspension came to be passed. It was further stated that as she was a temporary worker, she will not be paid any Subsistence Allowance for the period of suspension.

4. The respondent filed W.P.No.31156 of 2005 challenging the said order of suspension stating that she is a widow and she has no other livelihood other than this employment. She had also stated that in spite of her appeal to the District Collector to revoke the order of suspension, the same was not done and she was not paid any Subsistence Allowance.

5. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court will not interfere with the order of deemed suspension, which was passed based on the criminal case. At the same time, the learned Judge held that the respondent cannot be denied Subsistence Allowance and a direction was issued to the appellants to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the respondent/writ petitioner during the pendency of the order of suspension with effect from 10.1.2005.

6. Even though it was the contention of the appellants before us, which was also taken as ground No.6 in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal that the provisions and rules relating to regular employees including the provision as to payment of subsistence allowance are not applicable to the respondent, yet, it was argued before the learned Judge that the petitioner was suspended on the basis of the deemed suspension, which power is available only under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

7. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and have gone through the records and we do not find any merits in this appeal.

8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are aggrieved against the direction issued by the learned Judge regarding payment of subsistence allowance and it was his contention that as the respondent was working as a temporary worker, she is not governed by any Rules and she is not eligible for the same.

9. We are afraid this contention is without any substance. 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 suspension, then the employer is bound to pay full wages to the workman. The Supreme Court vide its decision reported in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1968 SC 800: 1968-II-LLJ-700 has held as follows :

“The general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his misconduct and the only question that can arise in such suspension will relate to payment during the period of such suspension. If there is no express term relating to payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any enactment or rule the employee i