Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Distribution Assistant in M/s Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 24.4.1969. He was promoted on the post of Executive Assistant in the year, 1977. He was further promoted as Personal Executive on 13.1.1986. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Charges were found to be proved. He was dismissed from service on 10.4.1990. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal against the order of dismissal. On 5.6.1991, the appeal was accepted and the following effective orders were passed:- "(1) He should be reinstated with immediate effect and the intervening period between the date of his termination and the date of his rejoining will be treated as break in service. (2) He is reduced to the lower post of Executive Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 1090-1850. (3) He is posted at IDPL Regional Office, Lucknow." 2. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the High Court at Delhi, but the same was dismissed in April, 1992. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 9.7.1992 by reckoning his seniority in the lower post. But in the years, 1992, 1994 and 1997, a number of persons, junior to the petitioner, were promoted, without considering the case of the petitioner. He made numerous representations, but none yielded any positive results. The petitioner, therefore, filed C.W.P. No. 2511 of 2002 praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the lower grade in terms of Fundamental Rule 29(3) of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 7.2.2002 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within three months. The petitioner submitted the representation which has been again rejected by the respondents by communication dated 25.6.2002. 3. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents .to fix his seniority in the lower grade in terms of Fundamental Rule 29(3). The petitioner also prays that in case he is found fit to be promoted on due consideration, the respondents be directed to grant all consequential benefits also. 4. The respondents have filed the written statement. The petitioner also prays that in case he is found fit to be promoted on due consideration, the respondents be directed to grant all consequential benefits also. 4. The respondents have filed the written statement. It is stated that the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.3.2001. The service in respondent-Corporation is not pensionable. He has already received his retiral dues and nothing remains to be paid to him. The respondent-Company has already been declared sick and more than 90% of the employees have either been retrenched or have been relieved under the voluntary retirement scheme. Therefore, the relief of promotion being claimed by the petitioner now is of no consequence. 5. The respondents have also pleaded that Fundamental Rule 29 would not be applicable as by the order dated 5.6.1991, the petitioner was not reduced in rank by way of punishment. He was given a fresh appointment as an Executive Assistant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the order dated 5.6.1991 shows that the order of dismissal had been modified to the extent indicated. He was directed to be reinstated with immediate effect. But the intervening period between the date of termination and date of re-joining was to be treated as a break in service. He was reduced to the lowec post of Executive Assistant. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner had been reverted by way of punishment. However, the period of reversion had not been specified. Therefore, it would be treated to be for an unspecified period. It is not denied by the respondents that the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1090/1850 was protected. It is in the light of these facts that the provision of Fundamental Rule 29(3) has to be considered. However, the period of reversion had not been specified. Therefore, it would be treated to be for an unspecified period. It is not denied by the respondents that the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1090/1850 was protected. It is in the light of these facts that the provision of Fundamental Rule 29(3) has to be considered. The aforesaid Rule is as follows:- "(3) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or a lower time-scale.- Every order passed by a Competent Authority under sub-rule (2) of FR 29 imposing on Government servant the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to lower time-scale should indicate:- (i) the date from which it will take effect and in cases where the reduction is proposed to be imposed for a specific period, the period (in terms of years and months) for which the penalty shall be operative. It should be noted that the reduction may be for an unspecified or an indefinite period and in cases where no period has been specified in the order of penalty, the conclusion is that the penalty is for an unspecified period. 2. When the Government servant is reduced to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time-scale whether for a specified or unspecified period, the pay in the lower service, grade or post or lower time scale, should be regulated in accordance with FR 28. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that a Government servant may be reduced to a lower service either for a specified period or for an unspecified period. In cases where the period has been specified, the Competent Authority shall have to indicate the date from which it will take effect and the period for which the penalty shall be operative. However, in case the period of the penalty is not specified, the conclusion is that the penalty is for an unspecified period. Fundamental Rule 29(3)(2) provides that when a Government servant is reduced to a lower service grade or post whether for a specified or unspecified period, the pay in the lower service shall be regulated in accordance with FR 28. Fundamental Rule 29(3)(2) provides that when a Government servant is reduced to a lower service grade or post whether for a specified or unspecified period, the pay in the lower service shall be regulated in accordance with FR 28. Under FR 28, the authority which orders the transfer of a government servant as a penalty from a higher to a lower grade or post may allow him to draw any pay, not exceeding the maximum of the lower grade or post. Since the pay of the petitioner was protected, it would be deemed to be the pay to be fixed under FR 28. Therefore, even though there would be break in the service of the petitioner, it would have only the effect that the period would not be counted for the purposes of increments. The punishment of break in service is not provided under any of the punishment and appeal rules. The term "break in service" in the impugned order would not mean that the petitioner would be placed at the bottom of seniority of Executive Assistant. Since his pay was protected, he has to be placed at the top of the seniority of Executive Engineer on reinstatement. Even otherwise since the period of reduction was unspecified, the petitioner would be clearly entitled to be placed as the senior most Executive Assistant. He would thereafter he entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis that he was the senior most Executive Assistant. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion from the date persons juniors to him were promoted by treating the petitioner to be the senior most Executive Engineer from the date he was reinstated. The consequential benefits, if any, be granted within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.