Mahinder Narain, J. ( 1 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner relies upon AIR 1991supreme Court 2010 (Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman),wherein F. R. 17 has beenconsidered, and it has been stated that when an employee is completelyexonerated incriminal/disciplinary proceedings, and is not visited with penalty,even of censure indicating thereby that he was not blame worthy in the least, heshould not be deprived of any benefits including the salary of the promotional post. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the counter-affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation, thepetitioner was completely exonerated. She has not been visited with any penalty. She has been appointed as a nursing sister with the retrospective effect from31. 5. 1990 by order dated 4. 2. 1994. ( 3 ) IN this view of the matter, the Municipal Corporation is not right in sayingthat the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the salary of the promotional postof nursing sister. The petitioner is entitled to receive this amount. This amountbe paid to the petitioner within two months. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.