Judgment :- 1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges Ext. P7 order which is the same as Ext. R5. This order was passed subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition. It was by an amendment to the Writ Peition, that this order was challenged. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Clerk. He was working in that capacity in the Maharajah's College, Ernakulam from 1105 to 1119. He was thereafter promoted as Store-keeper in the Chemistry Department in the grade of Rs. 40-60, which scale was subsequently revised to Rs. 40-80 and later to Rs. 40-120. 3. When the Travancore-Cochin State was formed, the gradation list of non-gazetted ministerial staff was prepared. By some oversight, the name of the petitioner did not find a place in the said list In the Kerala Gazette of January 1957 also, wherein the list of rearrangement of ranks was published, the petitioner's name was omitted. The petitioner started making representations to the Government. I do not think it necessary to refer to the various representations made by him. The last representation dated 13-4-1962 made by him was to the Chief Secretary to the Government. By orders passed on 14101963. his claim for seniority was recognised and it was ordered that he should be deemed to have been promoted to the Upper Division cadre with effect from 141955. This is evidenced by Ext. P1. 4. In the meantime, a large number of Government servants who were juniors to him were promoted. Para.4 of Ext. P1 reads as follows: "Shri. Menon however will not be eligible for any retrospective material benefit." The petitioner was aggrieved by this direction. 5. He started making representations to the Government complaining about the denial of material benefit to him retrospectively and contended that such denial was most arbitrary and not warranted by any rule of law. Since no favourable orders were passed on his representations, he moved this Court by O.P. No. 276 of 1964, praying that Ext. P1 order, to the extent it denied to him, the material benefit consistent with the conferment of promotion on 1-4-1955, be quashed. The judgment rendered by Govindan Nair J., as he then was, is Ext. P2 By then the petitioner had retired. The learned judge bad to consider two questions. (1) Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary by virtue of his promotion on 1-4-1955. The judgment rendered by Govindan Nair J., as he then was, is Ext. P2 By then the petitioner had retired. The learned judge bad to consider two questions. (1) Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary by virtue of his promotion on 1-4-1955. (2) How bis pension should be calculated. The learned judge left open the first question to be decided by the Government but made this observation: "In any view of the matter, it is essential that the salary of the petitioner is fixed with reference to the date on which be would have been promoted, had his name been included in the list at the appropriate time. The petitioner has now retired from service and such fixation is necessary for the purpose of deciding the quantum of the pension payable to him." Thus the learned judge directed that calculation be made, of the salaries he would have drawn, had he been promoted at the relevant time and the salaries so calculated will be taken for the purpose of determining his pension. In the said judgment, reliance was placed by the learned judge, on a judgment of the Mysore High Court reported in 1962 Mysore 146 and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1965 SC 868. I will have occasion to refer to these two authorities presently, while considering the merits of the petitioner's contention. 6. Aggrieved by the 1st portion of the judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal as Writ Appeal No. 124 of 1966. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal as follows: "The appellant proposes to move the Government for relief in respect of the difference in salary which he claims for the period from the date on which he should have been promoted and the actual date on which he was promoted. This is in accordance with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. If the appellant is aggrieved by the orders which the Government pass in the matter, (he appellant will be at liberty to move the Court for relief, if so advised. Subject to the above this appeal will stand dismissed." 7. Consequent upon this judgment, the petitioner filed a detailed representation to the Chief Minister and thereafter various other representations to the Government. The one sent to the Chief Minister was rejected. Subject to the above this appeal will stand dismissed." 7. Consequent upon this judgment, the petitioner filed a detailed representation to the Chief Minister and thereafter various other representations to the Government. The one sent to the Chief Minister was rejected. He was not favoured with any reply for the other representations. Hence this petition for a writ of mandamus to demand the Government to pass orders on his representations. It was in the meantime that Ext. P7 order was passed. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 141955. The State counsel invited my attention to the following sentences in Para.8 of the Counter-Affidavit which reads as follows: "Petitioner has been given notional promotion and fixation of pay in the post of Upper Division Clerk. It is the policy of Government that arrears of salary are not given to those who are promoted notionally since they do not actually work against that post. But they are given fixation benefits which has been given to the petitioner also." On this, the State counsel builds up two arguments. The petitioner had not worked actually as Upper Division Clerk. Unless the Government servant actually works in a post, he is not entitled to salary. In this case what has been granted is only a notional promotion and as such be cannot claim arrears of salary from 141955. The second limb of the argument is that there is no violation of any statutory rules in this case and as such the petitioner cannot mvoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. 9. Before adverting to the authorities cited at the Bar, I would like to observe that no one can be penalised for no fault of his. Suppose a Government servant was reverted illegally or his services wrongly terminated and such reversion or termination is subsequently held to be wrong by a court of law and he is directed to be promoted or reinstated, could it be contended that such government servant is not entitled to the remuneration for the period during which he was under illegal reversion or illegal termination. The Government cannot take advantage of a mistake committed by them or an order passed by them in illegal exercise of their power. The Government cannot take advantage of a mistake committed by them or an order passed by them in illegal exercise of their power. If this principle is kept in mind I feel no hesitation to bold that the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel in support of his claim are entitled to weight and acceptance 10. I may incidentally observe that though Govindan Nair J. in Ext. P2 judgment did not grant full relief to the petitioner, it contains sufficient material to persuade the Government to consider the case of the petitioner favourably. The contentions now raised by the State counsel to deny the petitioner's claim were not put forward before the learned judge in that case. 11. Now I will consider the judgments cited at the bar in brief to reinforce my conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In 1962 Mysore 146 the facts, although not identical, were more or less similar. In that case, the aggrieved party was appointed as a Senior Assistant with effect from September 18, 1943. Then he was deputed to the Civil Supplies Department in the service of the then Bombay State. He rose to the position of a Rationing Officer on March 1, 1954. When the Department of Civil Supplies was abolished, he was reverted to the Department of Public Works. When he was so reverted, he was drawing in the Department of Civil Supplies a pay of Rs. 460/- in the grade 350-30-650 On his reversion to the Department of Public Works, he was appointed to the post of a Junior Assistant on a pay of Rs 120/-. He questioned the reversion and denial of his proper place in the service. Several questions arose in the said decision with which I need not bother myself here. I need only refer to the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench here, after accepting the petitioner's case. He questioned the reversion and denial of his proper place in the service. Several questions arose in the said decision with which I need not bother myself here. I need only refer to the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench here, after accepting the petitioner's case. " If a Government servant was holding a particular post in his parent department, and was sent to another department on deputation, on his reversion from that department to the parent department be becomes entitled according to the Circular of the Government of the State of Bombay dated 3110 1950, not only to all the increments which he would have secured in his parent department but also to the restoration to him of every one of the higher posts which he would have in the normal course of events occupied in his parent department bad be remained in it, without having been deputed to another." (b) The petitioner should be regarded as having held on March 1, 1954, the post of an Assistant Secretary above that of C. P. Nadkarni, in the State of Bombay, on the same salary which K. P. Nadkarni was drawing on that day, as such Assistant Secretary. (c) The petitioner should further be regarded as having earned all the increments in the time scale of that post of Assistant Secretary, as and when those increments became due; (d) The aggregate of all such amounts to which the petitioner became so entitled either in the shape of salary or in the shape of increments between March 1,1954, and the date on which be retired from the service of the new State of Mysore, should now be paid by the Government of that State to the Petitioner after deducting therefrom the salaries so far received by him " This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1965 S. C. 868. The principle enunciated in this judgment found acceptance at the hands of the learned Judge. It is therefore an authority for the position that when a person entitled to a particular post on promotion has been reverted or whose service has been wrongly terminated for no fault of his but on account of the wrong committed by his employer, then he is entitled to the pecuniary benefit that he would have got had he continued in the post or promoted at the due time. 12. 12. In 1968 Gujarat 202, the facts related to the wrongful reversion of a Government servant. The reversion was found to be void. On the findings, he was found entitled to enhanced scale of salary A Division Bench held that the legal representatives of the deceased Government servant under such, circumstances were entitled to the enhanced salary 13. 1968 Allahabad 246 dealt with the case of termination of service for a period between 23rd May 1953 to 30th April, 1966 On reinstatement he claimed salary for the said period. His request for arrears of salary was met with a plea of limitation on the ground that his claim was time barred. The period during which he was out of service was more than three years. The plea of limitation was confined to the 1st three years. Dhavan J repelled the plea of limitation and held that the rights of the employee revivied on his reinstatement and the plea of limitation was not available to the Government. The learned judge observed that the ground on which the plea of limitation was raised was legally invalid and morally discreditable. The learned judge went further and held that the Government servant in that case was entitled even to interest on the money which was legally withheld for the period during which he was out of service, deprecated the indifference exhibited sometimes by the Government in meeting the just demands of these servants and observed: "This is not the first case in which bureaucratic indifference has resulted in several years' delay in payment of dues to a citizen." 14. I conclude the discussion with reference to the judgment reported in 1962 S. C. page 1334 in Para.11 (1962 S. C. 1334 1962 (2) SCJ 282). That was also a case of termination of service, which reads as follows: "The effect of the decree of the civil suit was that the appellant was never to be deemed to have been lawfully dismissed from service and the order of reinstatement was superfluous. The effect of the adjudication of the civil Court is to declare that the appellant had been wrongfully prevented from attending to his duties as a public servant. It would not in such a contingency be open to the authority to deprive the public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had be been permitted to work." 15. The effect of the adjudication of the civil Court is to declare that the appellant had been wrongfully prevented from attending to his duties as a public servant. It would not in such a contingency be open to the authority to deprive the public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had be been permitted to work." 15. The foregoing discussion with reference to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the Gujarat, Allahabad and Mysore High Courts clearly establish that a Government servant cannot be said to have forfeited his claim for arrears of salary when be did not get bis due promotion for no fault of his. The Government's plea that the petitioner was given only a notional promotion is not sustainable in law. What the petitioner got was not a notional promotion and it is wrong to call this promotion as 'notional' in the context of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The concept of notional promotion cannot enter the realm of discussion in this case. Notional promotion is one which a Government servant gets under particular exigencies of situation, which he cannot claim as of right. Here the petitioner is entitled as of right to get his promotion from 141955 and therefore bis claim for arrears of salary and other material benefit cannot be denied to him on the plea that what was given to him was only a notional promotion and the policy of the Government is not to give the arrears of salary in such cases. It is no argument to say that many have been promoted ignoring the petitioner's claim. I therefore hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. I quash Ext. P 7. In Ext. P 6, the details of the amounts due after deducting the actual amounts received are given. The Government will verify the actual amounts payable to the petitioner. The Government will pass orders of payment within 6 months after receipt of this judgment. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Allowed.