JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the back wages as petitioner has been promoted to the post with back date for the reason that some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he could not be given promotion. Ultimately after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner stood exonerated and he was granted promotion with back date. 2. The only issue is whether he was entitled to be considered for promotion and was willing to work on promotional post but he had been prevented to do so on the ground that he was facing disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the respondents did not promote him to work. In such circumstances the petitioner has been restrained from working on the promotional post. 3. An identical issue was considered by this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2105/95 Dr. Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan decided on 11th Feb., 1992 (by the Jaipur Bench) wherein reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was placed particularly in the case of Union of India v. V. Janki Raman, Naslim Jahir A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2010 , State of M.P. v. Sayed Nasim Jahir A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1165 and State of Haryana v. O.P Gupta and others 1996(7) SCC 533 and two earlier judgments of the Apex Court in Palru Ramakrishniah v. U.O.I. 1990 (3) SCC 472 and Virendra Kumar v. Avinash Chandra 1989 (2) SCC 541 and came to the conclusion that where a person is willing to work but he has not been allowed to work because of the circumstances prevailing and was given posting subsequently he would be entitled for consequential benefits including back wages. In the instant case, as petitioner had been deprived of promotional post because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him and ultimately he stood exonerated in those proceedings, so he became entitled for back wages of promotional post. 4. The submission of Mr. M.R. Singhvi, counsel for the respondents authority is that no relief can be granted in view of the provisions of rule 28-A(11)(a) the Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956. The said Rules are not attracted as it provides for different contingency where vacancies could not be determined for several years and promotions were given after some time. In the instant case there was vacancy and the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The said Rules are not attracted as it provides for different contingency where vacancies could not be determined for several years and promotions were given after some time. In the instant case there was vacancy and the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 5. In view of above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Petitioner is entitled for salary from 28.7.83 to 30.11.88 for the post of Tehsildar. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition Succeeds. *******