Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-This is second round of litigation with the grievance that in view of dismissal from service being set aside by this Court (DB) vide judgement dated 08.03.1984 in Special Appeal (Writ) No. 9/1977, petitioner became entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits which according to him, include future promotions, to which he became entitled for during period when he was not permitted to serve the Government on account of his wrongful dismissal from service. 2. Indisputably, petitioner joined service in erstwhile State of Jaipur as sub Inspector on 10.02.1948 and after integration of States, he was appointed as Sub Inspector in subordinate police service. While posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Badnor (Bhilwara) he was served with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) on 25.09.1962 and after holding inquiry, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.07.1964 against which he preferred appeal and review petition which were also rejected vide orders dated 25.06.1966 and 25.03.1969. 3. Against these aforesaid orders dated 13.07.1964, (punishment of dismissal from service), 25.06.1966 and 25.03.1969 (rejection of appeal and review petition), CWP No. 764/1969 was preferred which was dismissed in 1972 and special appeal was also dismissed; however, the SLP filed by petitioner was allowed and the matter was remanded to this Court vide order dated 15.09.1975 and the Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.08.1976, dismissed CWP No. 764/1969 against which Special Appeal (Writ) No. 9/1977 was preferred. The Division Bench allowed special appeal vide Judgment dated 08.03.1984 operative part whereof reads as under:-“In the result, this special appeal is allowed, the order dated 25.08.1976 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order (Annexure-20) dated 13.07.1964, passed by the Inspector General of Police dismissing the appellant from service; the order (Exhibit-22) dated 25.06.1966, passed by the State Government in appeal and the order (Exhibit-23) dated 25.03.1969 passed by the Governor rejecting the review petition of the appellant, are quashed.” 4. Against aforesaid direction issued by Division Bench in special appeal, the State preferred SLP (Civil) No. 11856/1984, which was dismissed by Apex Court vide order dated 211.1988. 5. Against aforesaid direction issued by Division Bench in special appeal, the State preferred SLP (Civil) No. 11856/1984, which was dismissed by Apex Court vide order dated 211.1988. 5. During such ordeal litigation, petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31.07.1981 and in the course whereof , a number of his colleagues who either joined service or were juniors to him or his contemporaries, were promoted upto the post of Deputy and Additional Superintendent of Police till their age of superannuation, as has been pleaded in instant petition. 6. After his dismissal being set aside by this Court vide Judgment dated 28.03.1984, respondents reinstated the petitioner in service on the post of Sub Inspector vide order dated 310.1989 and benefits flowing from holding post of Sub Inspector were extended to him including pensionary benefits as he had already attained age of superannuation on 31.07.1981 much before DB Judgment , ibid. Hence, this petition. 7. Only contention advanced by Counsel for petitioner is that once order of dismissal being set aside by this Court, he ought to have been treated in service for all practical purposes, meaning thereby he became entitled for all benefits particularly promotion and fixation as a consequence whereof accrued on higher promotional posts from the date persons who joined service alongwith him or thereafter being juniors but while reinstating him vide order dated 310.1989, pursuant to DB Judgment , ibid, it was treated as if he remained as Sub Inspector on which he initially joined way back in 1948; and such action of respondent is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 8. Counsel further contends that before approaching this Court, he served legal notice of demand for justice and it was specifically pointed out that his candidature should be considered for promotion from the date similarly situated persons appointed alongwith him were promoted in Ssubordinate and State Police Services and after due fixation in promotion posts, pecuniary benefits be paid. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in (1) C.O. Arumugam vs. State T.N. 1990 (1) SLR 288, (2) Union of India vs. Madhusudan Prasad, 2004 (1) SCC 43 , (3) K.M. Mohnot vs. Bank of Rajasthan, 1994 (1) WLC 729, & (4) State of Har. vs. Jaswant Singh, 2003 (4) SLR 410. 9. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in (1) C.O. Arumugam vs. State T.N. 1990 (1) SLR 288, (2) Union of India vs. Madhusudan Prasad, 2004 (1) SCC 43 , (3) K.M. Mohnot vs. Bank of Rajasthan, 1994 (1) WLC 729, & (4) State of Har. vs. Jaswant Singh, 2003 (4) SLR 410. 9. Additional affidavit has also been filed by petitioner pointing out that Satwant Singh who was appointed as ASI on 10.02.1948 and was junior to him, had retired as an Additional Superintendent of Police; and Jeevaraj Singh who joined as SI for one year from 01.01.1948 and was promoted as officiating Inspector of Police on 04.05.1954 and as officiating Deputy SP on 18.03.1965 and retired as Deputy SP on 28.02.1977 as is evident from application filed on 13.09.2005. 10. Respondents have filed their reply wherein facts as referred to by petitioner are not disputed but only justification as pleaded in Para 8 of the reply, is that the petitioner cold not be considered for promotion for the period during which he was not in service, is that under Service Rules, for promotion to the post of Police Inspector, one has to qualify the requisite test; and without passing such test, one cannot be considered for higher promotion; and since petitioner had not qualified in requisite test during the period and retired from service much before punishment of his dismissal from service was set aside by this Court vide Judgment , ibid; as such, no error has been committed by respondents in treating petitioner as Sub Inspector for grant of consequential benefits of that post which he initially held. 11. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that his dismissal from service vide order dated 13.07.1964 was finally set aside by this Court vide Judgment dated 28.03.1984 and by that time, petitioner attained age of superannuation on 31.07.1981 and pursuant to Judgment , ibid, he was treated to be reinstated in service as Sub-Inspector vide order dated 30.10.1989 and as a consequence whereof , pecuniary benefits treating him as if holding post of Sub-Inspector till date of retirement and so also pensionary benefits have been indisputably paid to him. 12. 12. Only substantive grievance raised by petitioner that once order of dismissal from service was set aside by Court of law, which attained finality reinstatement is a normal consequence whereof and very impediment of dismissal from service stands washed away for all practical purposes and thereby incumbent entitling benefits flowing therefrom as a consequence certainly promotion if granted to those who were either similarly situated or junior to incumbent having entered into service with him. 13. It is not the case that petitioner for some good reasons had not worked on the post of Sub-Inspector. On the contrary, respondents action of illegal dismissal of petitioner from service restrained him from working to discharge his regular duties and once dismissal has been set aside and impediment stood washed away, in my opinion, incumbent has to be treated in service for all practical purposes and that makes him entitled for benefits including pay, promotion and all other benefits, unless otherwise withheld under orders of Court or there being any statutory bar under Rules. 14. Petitioner has specifically stated about similarly situated personnel who were juniors to him, were promoted on higher posts and having retired from service after getting promotions on higher posts like Police Inspector, Deputy and Additional Superintendent of Police, as such in my opinion petitioner also has a right of consideration for promotion to those posts from the date such other like personnel contemporaries of petitioner were considered and promoted on higher posts. 15. Judgment s relied by Counsel for petitioner are only supporting to the extent that once incumbent is reinstated in service, he also becomes entitled for salary/back wages for intervening period unless otherwise withheld orders of Court. However, question arises is as to whether incumbent is entitled for future promotion in service or not. There is no Judgment cited which may support his contention. 16. In Law Lexicon 2nd Edn. 1997 and Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), word “reinstate” has been commented thus-“To reinstall; to reestablish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.” As per Mitras Legal and Commercial dictionary (5th Edn.). 16. In Law Lexicon 2nd Edn. 1997 and Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), word “reinstate” has been commented thus-“To reinstall; to reestablish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.” As per Mitras Legal and Commercial dictionary (5th Edn.). “reinstate” means-“To place in same position as before; to restore to previous position or state” “Reinstatement involves putting specified person back in law and in fact in same position as he occupied in the undertaking before the employer terminated his employment. Hodge vs. Ultra Electric Ltd., 1943 (1) K.B. 462. To reinstate a man is to replace him in the position from which he was dismissed and so to restore the status quo ante the dismissal. William Dixon Ltd. vs. Patterson, 1943 SC (J) 78.” 17. In view of what has been said (Supra), effect of an order of reinstatement is merely to set at naught order of wrongful dismissal of incumbent by employer and to reinstate him in service of the employer as if contract of employment originally entered into had been continuing. Status quo ante is to be restored as if no order of dismissal/termination was passed and its impediment has been washed away having no break in service for intervening period and the service would continue to be governed by same terms and conditions of service which were governing him at the time of his wrongful dismissal and thereby incumbent has become entitled for benefits flowing from setting aside of his wrongful dismissal, as if he was in service for all practical purpose, that in my opinion certainly will include promotion if accorded to persons who were similarly situated or juniors to him in the cadre. 18. 18. Objection raised by Counsel for respondents that since there is a qualifying test prescribed under Service rules, which one has to qualify for promotion to higher post of Sub-Inspector, in my opinion, is of no substance for the reason that if incumbent was not allowed to work during intervening period when similarly situated persons/ juniors were considered and promoted to higher posts and merely because there was qualifying test for Inspectors, in which indisputably petitioner could not be called upon to qualify at that moment obviously because of his wrongful dismissal, will not put any impediment from consideration for his promotion, in fact it was not the petitioner who restrained himself from work or discharge of his duties of the post but he was restrained by respondents by passing wrongful dismissal from service which was finally set aside after adjudication by this Court. Thus, in my considered opinion, such impediment will not construe as bar for consideration of incumbent who was wrongful and illegally restrained from work during the period when his promotion was due and he was entitled for consideration whereof on the basis of his service record without insisting upon to qualify in the test which is condition precedent under rules for promotion to the post of Inspector. 19. This aspect can further be looked into from statutory rules enacted by Government in exercise of powers under Article 309 of Constitution of India, namely Rajasthan Civil Services (Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1959 (“Rules, 1959”), which also lays down a condition precedent in service to qualify departmental test for one to become eligible for promotion but still rule making authority has considered that those who have crossed their age of 45 years should be granted exemption as referred to in Rule 18(1) which reads thus:- “18. Exemptions from examinations:-“(1) Government employees who have attained the age of 45 years on the date appointment to the service for which the departmental examination is to be conducted are exempted from appearing at the departmental examinations.” 20. Indisputably, the petitioner has crossed 45 years of age and has certainly come within exemption clause under Rule 18 of Rules, 1959 and he could not be denied his fair opportunity of consideration for promotion on the post of Inspector as well as other higher posts in service till he attained age of superannuation. Indisputably, the petitioner has crossed 45 years of age and has certainly come within exemption clause under Rule 18 of Rules, 1959 and he could not be denied his fair opportunity of consideration for promotion on the post of Inspector as well as other higher posts in service till he attained age of superannuation. In my considered opinion, petitioner became entitled to be considered for promotion which became due to him during service and impediment to qualify test would not come in his way for consideration of promotion under relevant service Rules applicable at relevant point of time. 21. Further question arises, if the incumbent becomes entitled for promotion from retrospective date, whether he will be entitled for monetary benefits, if found suitable for promotion. In my opinion, under rules, itself rule making authority has put restriction that if in any subsequent year, vacancies of earlier year are determined and considered for according promotion to the incumbent, he will get promotion from the date it became due including seniority but will not be entitled for actual monetary benefits except his notional fixation of pay which he will be entitled for at the time of promotion. Relevant Sub-rule (11-A) to Rule 28 of Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 reads as under:- “(11-A) If in any subsequent year, after promulgation of these rules, vacancies relating to any earlier year are determined under Sub-rule (2) of rule relating to determination of vacancies, which were required to be filled by promotion, the departmental promotion committee shall consider the cases of all such persons who would have been eligible in the year to which the vacancies, relates irrespective of the year in which the meeting of the departmental promotion committee is held and such promotions shall be governed by the criteria and procedure for promotion as was applicable in the particular year to which the vacancies relate and the service/experience of an incumbent who has been so promoted, for promotion to higher post for any period during which he has not actually performed the duties of the post, to which he would have been promoted, shall be counted. The pay of a person who has been so promoted shall be re-fixed at the pay which he would have derived at the time of his promotion but no arrears of pay shall be allowed to him.” 22. The pay of a person who has been so promoted shall be re-fixed at the pay which he would have derived at the time of his promotion but no arrears of pay shall be allowed to him.” 22. In this view of rule, (Supra), in my opinion, petitioner if found suitable for promotion to higher posts, he will not be entitled for actual salary of promotional posts as he has not actualy worked but will certainly be entitled for his notional fixation of pay and seniority for all practical purposes till his retirement and thereafter for pensionary benefits. 23. Consequently this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for promotion from the date his contemporaries/juniors were promoted to the posts of Inspector, Deputy and Additional Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, for which condition to qualify in the test under service rules, if any, will not come into his way. If petitioner is found suitable, he be promoted from such date, his juniors were promoted but his pay on promotion shall be refixed at the pay which he would have derived at the time of his promotion but no arrears of pay shall be allowed to him except notional fixation of his pay to the promotional posts till date of his retirement 31.07.1981. However, as a consequence of notional fixation of pay to promotional posts, his pensionary benefits will consequentially be revised and monetary arrears falling due towards pension etc., shall be payable to him. Since, petitioner is 75 years of age, all exercise to comply with aforesaid direction including payment of arrears etc., if any, be made within four months and final decision or consideration for his promotion and orders passed thereon be communicated to petitioner also. No costs.