By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, now a retired Govt. servant, has prayed for a direction to the respondents for giving him benefits of proforma retrospective promotion and also consequential financial benefits. 2. While serving as Disciplinary Officer which is equivalent to Deputy Jailor in the Govt. of Tripura the petitioner was put under suspension for his involvement in a criminal case vide order dated 7.6.82 with effect from 1.6.82 (Annexure 7) During the period of suspension two of his juniors, namely, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee and Mr. R. Dey were promoted to the post of Jailor on 14.5.83. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.1988 (Annexure 8) while the criminal case was still pending. Subsequently, the aforesaid criminal case ended by judgment and order dated 25.1.1992 of the concerned criminal Court acquitting the petitioner. After the said judgment of acquittal the petitioner made representation to the authority for giving him all service benefits including retrospective promotion and other consequential service benefits but the authority denied his request vide order dated 19.8.1994 (Annexure 10). Hence the present application. 3. Heard Mr. BB Deb, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S. Das, the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 4. The above facts regarding suspension, promotion of juniors as stated aboveare not denied by the respondents. Promotion to the post of Jailor was made while the petitioner was under suspension. It is established procedure that in such a case the Govt. servant who was by then under suspension is also considered alongwith others if he is otherwise eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the present case there is no specific averment in the counter affidavit on this point. To ascertain the point, the learned Govt. Advocate was directed to make a specific statement as to whether the petitioner was considered by the DPC or not. In compliance of the direction of the Court the learned Govt. Advocate produced the relevant file being No.II-410-IGP/85 and on the basis of the noting in the file has Submitted that the petitioner was duly considered by the DPC^which sat on 10.3.8 3 and it was found recorded that the petitioner was found fit for promotion but for his involvement in the criminal case he was not promoted. And sealed cover procedure was adopted. But the learned Govt. And sealed cover procedure was adopted. But the learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the sealed cover could not be traced out. Thus, in the present case it is established that the petitioner was found fit for the promotion to the post of Jailor but he was not promoted as he was under suspension. Law is clear and settled that in such a situation the Govt. servant who is under suspension will get retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted in case the Govt. servant under suspension is exonerated from the criminal case. 5. Mr. BB Deb, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is to be given proforma retrospective promotion as he is now retired from service and he should be given all service benefits and retirement benefits including pensionary benefits. In 1988 (2) GLR 332 it has been held that if an employee is put under suspension because of any criminal proceeding and no departmental proceeding has been drawn up and thereafter he is reinstated on being acquitted by the criminal Court, he is entitled to get full salary for the period of suspension even if the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt. In the case at hand no separate departmental proceeding was taken up against the petitioner and there was no financial involvement in the matter. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and settled point of law, my considered view is that the petitioner should be given proforma promotion to the post of Jailor with effect from 14.8.1983 when his juniors were promoted and he is entitled to all pay and allowances till his retirement on superannuation. The petitioner is also entitled to all other consequential service benefits including retiral and pensionary benefits minus the amount which the petitioner had already drawn. Accordingly it is ordered. The respondents are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order.