Suspension extension orders issued after ninety days are invalid notwithstanding timely review committee recommendations.

The applicants, employed as Pharmacists (Group C) by the respondent-organization (ESIC), were placed under suspension via an order dated 08.08.2025

Under the applicable regulations, the initial 90-day period of suspension was set to expire on 06.11.2025

Although a suspension review committee met on 31.10.2025 and recommended the continuation of the suspension, the formal order extending the suspension for a further 90 days was not issued until 13.11.2025—seven days after the initial period had lapsed

Having received no extension order by 12.11.2025, the applicants submitted representations seeking to resume their duties, only to be served with the impugned extension orders the following day

1. Whether the suspension of the applicants via the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 is valid in law given it was issued after the expiry of the initial 90-day period

2. Whether the pending representations of the applicants necessitated remitting the matter back to the respondents for departmental consideration instead of judicial interference

Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the corresponding Rule 10 of the ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2023, which stipulate that an order of suspension shall not be valid after 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period before the expiry of the said 90 days

The coordinate bench decision in Mahesh Kumar and Ors. v. ESIC (O.A. No. 3392/2019), which established that both the review and the consequential extension order must be completed within the 90-day window to remain sustainable in law

The Full Bench judgment in S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India and the rulings in Hari Om v. Union of India and Dr. Hari Prasad v. Union of India to affirm that communication of the extension order must occur before the expiry of the initial period

The Tribunal observed that the legal position regarding the timeline for suspension reviews is no longer res integra

It noted that while the Review Committee met within the stipulated 90 days (on 31.10.2025), the competent authority failed to pass or communicate a formal extension order before the deadline of 06.11.2025

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that a committee's recommendation is equivalent to a final order, emphasizing that the law requires two distinct components before the 90-day expiry: a review and a formal order of extension by the competent authority

Since the impugned orders were issued only on 13.11.2025, the Tribunal found them to be in direct violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

Regarding the respondents' request to remit the matter due to pending representations, the Tribunal found no merit in this, noting that the applicants only received the impugned orders as a response to their requests to resume duty, and the legal error was already manifest

It held that the continued suspension beyond 90 days without a timely extension order was illegal and unsustainable

The respondents were directed to treat the applicants as "on duty" from the 91st day of their initial suspension and grant all consequential benefits within four weeks

The Tribunal granted the respondents the liberty to decide the nature of the initial 90-day suspension period in accordance with relevant rules