JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks direction to declare him eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture) w.e.f. 7th July, 1990. 2. It is averred that while he was working on the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture), Kotri in addition to his own duties, he was placed under suspension by order dated 4.5.1990 pending departmental enquiry. He was reinstated by order dated 1.5.1991. He was exonerated in the departmental enquiry as per communication dated 15.2.1992. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the period of his 10 suspension, the departmental promotion committee withheld his promotion because of the pendency of departmental enquiry and followed the procedure of sealed cover. 4. In reply to the writ petition, in para it is stated that petitioner has been given promotion against the vacancies of 1989-90 by order dated is 29.4.1992. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. However, the learned counsel has invited my attention to the para 24(iii) of the reply wherein it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears as he has actually not worked during the said period. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the only controversy remains is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the arrears during the period he was deprived of promotion on account of pendency of departmental enquiry in which he was ultimately exonerated. 6. The learned counsel has strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 . The Additional Government Advocate submits that Jankiraman's case (supra) has been distinguished by the Apex Court in the State of Haryana and Others v. O.P. Gupta and Others, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 533 . In the said case, the promotion was denied on account of certain administrative lapse which was later on cured. While distinguishing the Jankiraman's case (supra) in para 8 of the judgment it has been clearly observed by the Apex Court that, that was a case where the respondent was kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted. While distinguishing the Jankiraman's case (supra) in para 8 of the judgment it has been clearly observed by the Apex Court that, that was a case where the respondent was kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of Jankiraman's case (supra) and as such the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits for the period for which he was denied promotion on account of pendency of departmental enquiry. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner including the difference of pay taking the notional promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture) from the date person junior to him was promoted. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the interest @ 9% for the delayed payment. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ.Writ Petition Allowed - Respondents Directed to Grant all Consequent Benefits to Petitioner. *******