Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a non-cadre II Grade Professor in Physical Education in a Government College. By this writ petition she seeks a direction to the respondents for payment of salary and allowances due to her for the period she was denied promotion as Instructor in Polytechnic and as Lecturer in Government College. The petitioner was initially recruited into Government service on 21-3-1959 as a Teacher in Physical Education in a Government High School. As per G.O.MS. 613/ Edn. dated 9-11-1965 the Government had prescribed the qualifications and the procedure for recruitment as Physical Education Teacher in Government High Schools and for their promotion to the higher categories of Instructor in Polytechnics and of Lecturer in Government Colleges. The qualifications prescribed were a Degree of a recognised University and a Diploma in Physical Education awarded by Government College of Physical Education or other recognised institution. The feeder category for promotion to the posts of Instructors in Polytechnics is of Teachers in Physical Education in Government High Schools. It is only in the absence of personnel in the feeder category that direct recruitment is permitted. Further promotion to the posts of Lecturers in Government Colleges is from among Instructors in Polytechnics and it is only in their absence direct recruitment is to be resorted to. The 2nd respondent, the Director of Collegiate Education, called for applications from Physical Education Teachers in Government High Schools in the year 1965 for promotion to four posts of Instructors in Government Polytechnics. The petitioner was fully qualified. Her application was however rejected for the reason that being a woman she is not eligible for appointment to the post. The 2nd respondent thereafter requested the Kerala Public Service Commission to select four candidates for appointment by direct recruitment. The Public Service Commission selected four persons of whom two were women. One Santhamma among those selected by the P. S. C. was appointed as Instructor in Polytechnic on 9-11-1967. She was later promoted as Lecturer in Government College on 5-12-1967. The petitioner thereupon filed O. P. No. 4746 of 1968 challenging the appointment of persons directly recruited by the P.S.C. and claiming appointment and promotion in the place of Santhamma recruited by the P. S. C. Govindan Nair J. as he then was by Ext. She was later promoted as Lecturer in Government College on 5-12-1967. The petitioner thereupon filed O. P. No. 4746 of 1968 challenging the appointment of persons directly recruited by the P.S.C. and claiming appointment and promotion in the place of Santhamma recruited by the P. S. C. Govindan Nair J. as he then was by Ext. P7 judgment dated 2 4-11-1970 found that appointment by direct recruitment is permissible as per the Government Order aforesaid only in the absence of qualified candidates in the feeder category, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that women are not eligible for promotion is not correct and that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the posts of Instructor in Polytechnic and of Lecturer in Government College on the dates on which Santhamma the direct recruit was appointed and promoted. The learned judge gave the following direction in Para.5 and 6 of Ext. P7 Judgment: "5. I should in the light of what I have stated above, set aside the appointments of respondents 7 and 9 and direct the consideration of the Claims of the petitioner and fresh orders being passed in the matter. But it is now some time since respondents 7 and 9 have been appointed and I understand they have also been provisionally promoted as Lecturers.' I do not think that interests of justice now require that I should set aside these appointments in toto. I consider that the least that can be done to the petitioner is that there should be a direction that her claims for being appointed to the post in accordance with Ext. P-1 which incidentally make no differentiation between the sexes in the matter of appointment to the posts, must be considered. 6. I therefore direct that the claims of the petitioner will be considered to the next vacancy that arises in the post of Physical Instructors and appropriate orders passed before the claims of any other person either in service now in the categories mentioned in the last paragraph of Ext. P-1 or of any outsiders are considered." In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in Physical Education in Polytechnic on 30-12-1970 and was promoted as Lecturer in Physical Education in Government College on 27-4-1971. Her seniority over those directly recruited by the Public Service Commission was also declared. P-1 or of any outsiders are considered." In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in Physical Education in Polytechnic on 30-12-1970 and was promoted as Lecturer in Physical Education in Government College on 27-4-1971. Her seniority over those directly recruited by the Public Service Commission was also declared. Her representation for promotion as Instructor in Polytechnic with effect from 9-11-1967 and as Lecturer in Government College with effect from 5-12-1967 was however rejected by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner thereupon filed O.P.No.11.06 of 1981 to quash the orders declining promotions with retropective effect from the dates aforesaid and for consequential reliefs. This Court by Ext. P3 judgment dated 17-8-1982 found that the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Instructor in Physical Education in Polytechnic on the date on which Santhamma was appointed by direct recruitment. It was also found that the petitioner is entitled to promotion with effect from the date on which the direct recruit was promoted as Lecturer and as non-cadre Professor in Government College. This Court allowed the O.P. directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the light of the findings within three months from the date of the judgment. The Government thereafter passed Ext. P5 order on 30-8-1982 as per which the petitioner was given retrospective promotion as Instructor in Physical Education in Government Polytechnic with effect from 9-11-1967 and as Lecturer in Government College with effect from 5-12-1967. The order Ext. P5 concluded stating that the petitioner "will be given notional fixation in the respective grades without claim for back arrears." On further representation by the petitioner the Government passed a subsequent order Ext. P6 dated 15-2-1983 declining her prayer for arrears of salary and allowances with effect from the dates on which she was given promotion as Instructor in Government Polytechnic and as Lecturer in Government College. It is to quash Ext. P6 and for a direction for payment of salary due to her with effect from the dates of the retrospective promotions given to her that the petitioner has filed this O.P. 2. It is clear from the judgments Exts. P7 and P3 that the petitioner was wrongly declined promotion to the post of Instructor in Physical Education in Polytechnic for the reason that she is a woman. It is clear from the judgments Exts. P7 and P3 that the petitioner was wrongly declined promotion to the post of Instructor in Physical Education in Polytechnic for the reason that she is a woman. It was for that reason that this Court directed her retrospective promotion with effect from the dates on which Santhamma, a direct recruit, was appointed as Instructor in Polytechnic and promoted as Lecturer in Government College. Ext. P5 order of Government had rectified the mistakes and the petitioner was given retrospective promotions with effect from the, dates on which she was entitled to such promotions. The only question now before us is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and allowances as Instructor from 9-11-1967 and as Lecturer from 5-12-1967 with effect from which dates the petitioner is given promotions as per Ext. P5 order of Government. 3. Khalid J. (as he then was) in the decision in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (1978 K.LT.29) after consideration of the case law on the point has stated thus at page 32:- "15. The foreging 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 he did not get his 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 1-4-1955 and therefore his 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." This decision was affirmed and followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajappan Nair v. State of Kerala (1984 K.L.T. 141) wherein it is stated as follows: "It quite often happens that a Government Servant does not get his due promotion on the date he ought to have got it, but later it is given to him with retrospective effect from an earlier date. If for no fault of his, promotion to a Government servant is delayed and it is given to him later with retrospective effect from the date on which it was due the Government servant is naturally entitled to restoration of the benefits which he has lost not on account of his conduct or laches. It is only proper that the Government should restore to him all that is lost by way of salary or other emoluments. This is a principle stated by our learned brother Khalid J., in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, 1978 KLT. 29, a principle concerning which we could not see how any exception could be taken. Since the question has been elaborately considered by our learned brother with which we are in respectful agreement we do not think we should go into this any further." In a later decision of this Court in Philomina v. State of Kerala (1984 K.L.T. 59 D.B.)) after considering the decisions of Khalid J. and of the Division Bench referred to above it is stated thus at page 62: 7. A distinction must be drawn between cases where a person was unlawfully prevented from working or denied or deprived of his rightful place as a result of an illegal order, the illegality of which was declared by a competent court or is demonstrably manifest and voluntarily admitted by the employer on the one hand, and on the other cases of bonafide or innocent errors, which means errors not unreasouably and wilfully or maliciously committed by the employer. (See the Principle stated by Lord Denning M. R. in Education Sec. v. Tameside. (1976) 3 WLR, 641, 652-653). (See the Principle stated by Lord Denning M. R. in Education Sec. v. Tameside. (1976) 3 WLR, 641, 652-653). In the case of the former, the declaration or admission of illegality may, in given circumstances, wipe out the break in service or the offending act altogether as if it never occurred, and the employee may be entitled to the full benefits of the service which he is in law deemed to have rendered uninterruptedly in the grade in which he was entitled to be. That is not so in the latter where a bonafide error or omission in an otherwise valid order made within jurisdiction is subsequently corrected." The present case falls under the class of cases of the first category referred to in the passage quoted above. This Court had found that the petitioner was denied promotion for the reason that he is a woman and on direct recruitment another woman was appointed to the post to which the petitioner was entitled to promotion. This is a case where the petitioner was denied promotion illegally, and the mistake was directed to be rectified as peene decisions of of this Court referred to above. The petitioner is therefore entitled to full salary and allowance with effect from the dates on which she was given retrospective promotions as Instructor in Physical Education in Government Polytechnic and as Lecturer in Government Colleges. We therefore direct payment of arrears of salary and allowances due to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The Original Petition is allowed as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.