90 days, which was decided in favour of the Petitioner and the Court held that the order dated 20.06.2011 continuing the suspension after 90 days, without a deliberation by the Suspension Review Committee was illegal. There was no challenge to the original suspension order dated 29.09.2010. Therefore, Petitioner cannot at this stage challenge the said order. 10. The claim of the Petitioner that he has not been paid the complete amount towards the difference between the salary and the subsistence allowance for the suspension period is also without any basis. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Chauhan, during the pendency of LPA No. 944/2013, Respondent had placed on record a computation sheet with two annexures. Annexure ‘A’ was with respect to the difference of pay and allowances and the subsistence allowance during the suspension period, as per which a sum of Rs.2,46,269/- was payable and Annexure ‘B’ indicated the interest component of Rs.1,42,614/-, which included the two months’ grace period granted by the learned Single Judge. Petitioner did not object to the computation and accepted the calculations to be correct. In light of this, the Division Bench directed release of the amounts within six weeks. It is an undisputed position that Petitioner neither sought a review of this order nor filed any Appeal, so as to dispute the quantum of the amounts. Payments have been made by the Respondent in terms of the order of the Division Bench and this issue cannot be re-agitated by the Petitioner.
