ORDER 1. The petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition claims that since he has been granted seniority with effect from 22.12.1989 on the post of Deputy Manager (Junior Pay-Scale) by order dated 14.9.1995 contained in Annexure P-9, therefore, he will also be entitled for the salary. The petitioner further claims that his juniors were already promoted with effect from 28.6.1995 as Dy. Manager (Senior Pay Scale) but his claim was not considered by the respondent for promotion on the post of Dy. Manager (Senior Pay-scale) only for the reason that according to the respondent the petitioner has actually not worked on the post of Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale). For considering an employee to give promotion as Dy. Manager (Senior Pay-scale), the requirement under the Rules is seven years service as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale). 2. Arguments are heard. Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent has cited a judgment of the apex Court reported in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, [ (1996) 4 SCC 416 ]. He has referred to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment and submitted that the apex. Court in the aforesaid judgment has not allowed the monetary benefits to the person who has been granted notional seniority on the post. According to him, the said judgment would be applicable in the present case also. On the contrary, Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter with regard to grant of notional seniority and the monetary benefits on grant of notional seniority, is covered by the judgments of the apex Court in Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman, [ AIR 1991 SC 2010 ], Union of India v. R.S. Sharma, [ AIR 2000 SC 2337 ] and State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, [ (1996) 7 SCC 533 ]. While citing the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where the petitioner has been made to suffer without there being any fault on his part and thus according to the ratio of the judgment passed by the apex Court in Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman (supra), he is entitled to be given the monetary benefits also. 3. In the present case the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 26.5.1988 and the departmental enquiry was initiated against him. 3. In the present case the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 26.5.1988 and the departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Ultimately, the respondents passed an order dated 28.6.1995 (Annexure P-7), by which the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. At the time when the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet, he was working as Project Range Officer which is a feeder post of Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale). During the pendency of the departmental enquiry many juniors of the petitioners were promoted as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) but due to pendency of the enquiry the case of the petitioner was not considered. It is ultimately when the proceedings of the departmental enquiry terminated by order dated 28.6.1995 (Annexure P-7) exonerating the petitioner from all the charges, the case of the petitioner was considered for giving him promotion to the post of Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale). The petitioner was given promotion by passing an order dated 14.9.1995 as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) with retrospective effect i.e. 22.12.1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges, he was deprived of his promotion during the pendency of the departmental enquiry which ultimately was terminated on his exoneration and thus for no fault on his part, he was deprived of getting monetary benefits and thus the principle of 'no work no wage' will have no application in the present case. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Trivedi, gets support from paragraph-7 of the judgment of the apex Court in Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman (supra). 4. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner would also be entitled for the monetary benefits from the date of his promotion as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) i.e. 22.12.1989 on which date the petitioner was also given the notional seniority. 5. Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner would not be entitled for the monetary benefits in view of the judgment reported in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (supra). I have perused the aforesaid judgment and I find that the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the present case because the Railway Administration was having a specific rule for grant of notional seniority and promotion with retrospective effect without payment of actual monetary benefits. I have perused the aforesaid judgment and I find that the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the present case because the Railway Administration was having a specific rule for grant of notional seniority and promotion with retrospective effect without payment of actual monetary benefits. Thus, the matter in relation to grant of monetary benefits with retrospective effect and grant of promotion and seniority is directly covered by the judgment of the apex Court in K. V. Jankiraman (supra) and, therefore, the arguments of Mr. Manish Nigam learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. 6. Another claim of Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been deprived from consideration for getting his promotion to the post of Dy. Manager (Senior Pay-scale) with effect from 28.6.1995 that is the date when his juniors were promoted. According to him since he has been granted promotion as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) from 22.12.1989, therefore, he shall be deemed to have held the office of Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) from that date and would also be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Dy. Manager (Senior Pay-scale). To this, Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under the Rules a person who has served for a period of seven years as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) alone are entitled to be considered to the next higher promotion post i.e. Dy. Manager (Senior Pay-scale) and since the petitioner has not worked for the required period of seven years, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for promotion and thus his claim has rightly been rejected by the respondents. 7. The aforesaid argument of Mr. Manish Nigam has no legs to stand because if a person is granted seniority with retrospective effect, as in the instant case, with effect from 22.12.1989, then he would be deemed to have held his office as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) for all the purposes. Grant of seniority from 22.12.1989 as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) cannot be ignored for getting his promotion to the next higher pay-scale otherwise the purpose of granting seniority w.e.f. 22.12.1989, would frustrate the purpose and, therefore, the submission of Mr. K.K. Trivedi, also deserves to be accepted. 8. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) for all the purposes. Grant of seniority from 22.12.1989 as Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) cannot be ignored for getting his promotion to the next higher pay-scale otherwise the purpose of granting seniority w.e.f. 22.12.1989, would frustrate the purpose and, therefore, the submission of Mr. K.K. Trivedi, also deserves to be accepted. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms : (i) In the present case petitioner is entitled for all the monetary benefits from 22.12.1989 on the post of Deputy Manager (Junionr Pay-scale) but keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I thin that it would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is paid 75% (Seventy five per cent) of the monetary benefits to the post of Dy. Manager (Junior Pay-scale) from 22.12.1989 within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. (ii) The petitioner's case shall also be considered for promotion to the post of Dy. Manager (Senior Pay-scale) as his juniors were promoted on the said post w.e.f. 26.6.1995 and shall also be entitled for the arrears of salary @ 75% only, by holding a DPC in the matter. In case the petitioner is found fit then the aforesaid benefits be paid within a period of four months. 9. I have given the petitioner 75% of the monetary benefits as above keeping in view the submission of Mr. Manish Nigam, as by submitted that the financial position of the respondent is not very sound. Mr. Trivedi had not been able to dispute the same. 10. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with no orders as to costs.