Judgment :- V.S.Sirpurkar, J.: This is a peculiar case. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the letter dated 15.10.1996. Before we go to the root of the matter it will be better to understand few facts. 2. The petitioner was posted as a telephone operator in the year 1952. He was confirmed in the year 1956. At that time and even prior to his appointment, there was an office memorandum which was ruling the situation, that was dated 22.6.1949, whereunder the seniority and promotions were made on the basis of the length of service in the Department in the respective cadres. This was changed by office memorandum dated 22.12.1959, where the seniority in respective cadres was to be fixed only on the basis of confirmation and not on the basis of the length of service. This situation was itself changed because of the Supreme Courts decision reported in Union of India and others v. M.Ravi Varma and others Union of India and others v. M.Ravi Varma and others Union of India and others v. M.Ravi Varma and others A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 670 wherein it was held that the change in the office memorandum dated 22.12.1959 could not be made applicable to those who had joined service before that date. The petitioner earned his first promotion as telephone supervisor with effect from 20.2.1967 and he was thereafter promoted to the post of Senior Telephone Supervisor with effect from 15.2.1985. The petitioner then continued in the post of Telephone Supervisor till 14.5.1987, on which date he took voluntary reversion which took effect from 15.5.1987. The petitioner continued to be working on the reverted post till 25.10.1990 when he was again promoted to the post of Senior Telephone Supervisor and ultimately the petitioner was superannuated on 30.4.1991. 3. However, in the meantime, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in a batch of petitions had set aside the seniority lists which were in prevalence and directed the said lists to be revised in the light of the Supreme Court decision, which was referred by us supra. Accordingly there was refixation of seniority in respect of the persons who entered into the Department between 22.6.1949 and 21.12.1959 which naturally included the petitioner. The petitioners seniority was fixed at Rank No.117. Accordingly there was refixation of seniority in respect of the persons who entered into the Department between 22.6.1949 and 21.12.1959 which naturally included the petitioner. The petitioners seniority was fixed at Rank No.117. He was informed that he was notionally promoted to the post of Telephone Supervisor with effect from 1.3.1964 and to the post of Senior Telephone Supervisor with effect from 9.6.1980. The petitioner was not however, paid his benefits regarding the seniority with effect from 9.6.1980 but it seems that the department decided to deduct the benefits between the dates of 15.5.1987 and 25.10.1990 when the petitioner actually did not work on account of his voluntary reversion. The petitioner made representations dated 24.1.1992 and 22.10.1992 and claimed that he should be given a notional fixation benefit for the entire period, that is from 9.6.1980 to 24.10.1990 ignoring the period of reversion. However, that was not agreed to by the department by its reply dated 15.10.1996 which resulted in the petitioner approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal also has rejected the claim of the petitioner and has upheld the stand taken by the Department. 4. Learned Counsel challenges the order firstly on the ground that this approach by the Department as well as the Tribunal was only incorrect. Learned counsel argues that once a notional promotion was given in 1980 then till such period as the petitioner kept on serving, the advantage of that notional promotion must be granted to the petitioner irrespective of the fact whether he actually worked or not. Learned counsel very interestingly argues that if there was a person who did not at all get the actual promotion to the post of Senior Telephone Supervisor, yet such person would have been entitled to get all those advantages. He, therefore, argues that the subsequent action on the part of the petitioner in seeking reversion therefore becomes irrelevant for the purposes of grant of benefits. The argument, though attractive, lacks substance. It has to be taken into consideration that the notional promotion was given to give some advantage to such persons, who because of the defective or faulty seniority lists could not get the promotion earlier, though they were entitled to. 5. Therefore, it will have to be held that though the petitioner deserved to be promoted from 1980, he was actually promoted in the year 1985. 5. Therefore, it will have to be held that though the petitioner deserved to be promoted from 1980, he was actually promoted in the year 1985. The advantage which has been given by the notional promotion would be therefore, restricted only to the period of 1980 when he was liable to be promoted notionally and 1985 when he was actually promoted. It is only with that idea that the notional promotion has been granted to compensate for the loss suffered by the persons on account of the defective seniority lists. Beyond that the situation cannot go. For example, if a person resigns the post in 1985, such person cannot say that he should still be treated in service till he would have superannuated. That fact remains that after being promoted in the post of Senior Telephone Supervisor in the year 1985, the petitioner continued to work in that post till 1987 and thereafter sought a voluntary reversion which was actually given to him and for three years he had been serving in the lower post of Telephone Supervisor. That fact has to be taken into consideration, when the petitioners pensionary benefits are to be given and he is to be fixed in a particular scale only with regard to the actual service which he has rendered. If at all there was any advantage to the petitioner, that is only about this prior period when he was bound to be promoted, but was not promoted owing to the defective seniority lists. In this case it is not the petitioners case that the period between 1980 and 1985 or for that matter the benefits due to him for the period when the petitioner was actually working as Senior Telephone Supervisor has been denied to him. 6. We do not find any defect in the logic of the learned Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal. We do not find any merits in this writ petition and dismiss the same without any orders as to costs.