Judgment :- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to ruling 17 under FR 27 and order passed by the 1st Respondent in letter No.49868/Pol.1A/2004-4 dated 30/10/2004. The Petitioner seeks direction that Ruling 17 under FR 27 and the impugned order dated 30.10.2004, as null and void and seeks further direction to the Respondents to create a supernumerary post in the rank of Superintendent of Police from the period from 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004 and to disburse the arrears of pay and pensionary benefits due to the Petitioner on par with his juniors. 2. Factual background which lead to filing of the writ petition are as follows: (i) The Petitioner Mariappan entered the service as a directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police on 211. 1966. After getting his promotions as Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police he was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police on 18.05.2000. As per his seniority, he became eligible in the zone of consideration for inclusion in the panel of Additional Superintendents of Police fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police for the year 2001-2002. But he was not included in the said panel in view of currency of the punishment of censure awarded to him on 21.05.2001, by the Director General of Police. In G.O. (2D) No.443, the punishment of censure awarded to the Petitioner was cancelled by the Government. (ii) Subsequently, Petitioners name was included as Sl.No.1 in the panel of Additional Superintendents of Police fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police for the year 2002-2003, approved by Government. In G.O.Ms.No.1130, Home Department, dated 211. 2002. In the meanwhile, Petitioner was served with a Charge Memo dated 10.01.2003 under 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules before his actual promotion. Hence Petitioners name was deleted from the said panel for promotion as temporary Superintendent of Police for the year 2002-2003. (iii) The Petitioner filed O.A.No.334/2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for promotion as Superintendent of Police by including his name in the panel of Additional Superintendent of Police fit for promotion as temporary Superintendent of Police for the year 2001-2002, and another O.A.No.394/2003 for quashing the Charge Memo dated 10.01.2003 under rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules served on him on 11.01.2003. By common order dated 10.02.2003, the Administrative Tribunal directed to convert the charge against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) to 17(a) of TNCS (D&A) Rules and to consider his promotion for the post of Superintendent of Police, if he is otherwise fit. (iv) Challenging the order of Administrative Tribunal State Government has filed two writ petitions Nos.13499 and 16612/2003 , the High Court has confirmed the order of Administrative Tribunal. (v) Government has passed G.O.(3D).No.129, Home Department, dated 20.11.2003, issued orders that the Petitioner be temporarily promoted as Superintendent of Police and he was posted as Superintendent of Police on 23.02.2004, subject to the outcome of writ petitions. Meanwhile, as per direction of the Government in Letter (D) No.88, Home Department, dated 27.01.2004, the charge framed against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) was modified to 17(a) and the same was dropped by the 2nd Respondent by the order dated 15.03.2004. In accordance with his seniority as Additional Superintendent of Police, the Government passed order in G.O.Ms.No.532, Home Department dated 08.04.2004, ordering inclusion of Petitioners name in the panel of the year 2001-2002 at Sl.No.2A. (vi) The Petitioner requested for creation of a supernumerary post in the rank of Superintendent of Police for the period 22.07.2002 (When his junior assumed charge as Superintendent of Police) to 22.02.2004, the date prior to the date of his actual assumption of charge as Superintendent of Police. The Petitioners request was considered and the Government by the impugned order rejected Petitioners request for creation of supernumerary post and for payment of salary in the cadre of Superintendent of Police, relying upon the Ruling 17 under FR 27. (vii) Government has filed the counter stating that after cancellation of punishment of censure as well as the charge, name of the Petitioners name was ordered to be included in the panel for the year 2001-2002, for revised promotion of Superintendent of Police with retrospective effect from 22.07.2002. According to the Respondents as per ruling 17 under FR 27, petitioners pay has to be fixed on the date of assumption of his charge in the higher post on par with the pay of his junior. Accordingly his pay has been fixed notionally in the rank of Superintendent of Police on par with his immediate junor R.Venkatraju, with effect from 22.07.2002. 3. Accordingly his pay has been fixed notionally in the rank of Superintendent of Police on par with his immediate junor R.Venkatraju, with effect from 22.07.2002. 3. Challenging the Rule 17 under FR 27 and the impugned order the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.K.Venkatramani, has contended that once the punishment was set aside Petitioners claim relates back to the date of his original seniority. The learned counsel further contended that the Government itself has included Petitioners name in the panel of the year 2001-2002, as Sl.No.2A and thereby restoring seniority Petitioner is eligible for the salary on the day which he was actually due for promotion. Placing reliance on AIR 1991 SC 2010 , Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, the learned counsel submitted that the normal rule "No Work No Pay" is not applicable to such cases. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that merely invoking the Ruling 17 under FR 27 and to deny the salary is illegal and unsustainable. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.N.Senthilkumar, has submitted that as per ruling 17 under FR 27 Petitioners pay has been fixed on the date of assumption of his charge in the higher post and his pay fixed notionally in the rank of Superintendent of Police on par with his immediate junior with effect from 22.07.2002. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that Petitioners pay has been fixed notionally and arrears of pay and allowances were authorized to him by the Pay and Accounts Oficer, Madurai for the period from 23.02.2004 (i.e) from the date of assumption of charge as Superintendent of Police till the date of retirement on superannuation and the Petitioner cannot claim salary prior to the date of his actual assumption of charge as Superintendent of Police. 5. The punishment of censure awarded to the Petitioner on 21.05.2001, which stood in his way for inclusion in the panel for promotion as Superintendent of Police for the year 2001-2002 was subsequently cancelled by the Government on 30.12.2002. Another charge which stood as an impediment was modified from 17(b) to 17(a) and the same was dropped by Director General of Police by order dated 15.03.2004. In accordance with his seniority as Additional Superintendent of Police, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.532, Home Department dated 08.04.2004 included Petitioners name in the panel of the year 2001-2002 at Sl.No.2A. Another charge which stood as an impediment was modified from 17(b) to 17(a) and the same was dropped by Director General of Police by order dated 15.03.2004. In accordance with his seniority as Additional Superintendent of Police, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.532, Home Department dated 08.04.2004 included Petitioners name in the panel of the year 2001-2002 at Sl.No.2A. The Petitioner was temporarily promoted as Superintendent of Police and assumed charge on 23.02.2004. 6. Request of the Petitioner is for a creation of a supernumerary post in the rank of Superintendent of Police for the period from 22.07.2002(When his junior assumed charge as Superintendent of Police) to 22.02.2004 the date prior to the date of his actual assumption of charge as Superintendent of Police. As per ruling 17 under FR 27 Petitioners pay has to be fixed at the date of assumption of charge in the higher post on par with the pay of his junior. 7. Rule 17 under FR 27 reads as under: "In case where a Government servant has been overlooked for promotion/appointment to the next higher post but subsequently promoted/appointed to that higher post after restoration of his original seniority on appeal, his pay shall be fixed on the date of assumption of charge in the higher post on par with the pay of his junior provided he has drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post from time to time. If he has not drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post, his pay shall be fixed, on the date of assumption of lower post, his pay shall be fixed, on the date of assumption of charge, at the stage at which he would have drawn pay on that date had he been promoted/appointed to the higher post along with his junior. In cases where seniority has been restored on or after 19th September 1981, arrears of pay and allowance consequent of fixation of pay shall be admissible with effect from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post. In cases where seniority has been restored prior to 19th September 1981, arrears shall be admissible only with effect from the above date.[G.O.Ms.No.977, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) dated 6th october, 1986] 8. Petitioners junior R. Venkataraju, assumed charge as Superintendent of Police on 22.07.2002 and the Petitioner assumed charge as Superintendent of Police on 23.02.2004. In cases where seniority has been restored prior to 19th September 1981, arrears shall be admissible only with effect from the above date.[G.O.Ms.No.977, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) dated 6th october, 1986] 8. Petitioners junior R. Venkataraju, assumed charge as Superintendent of Police on 22.07.2002 and the Petitioner assumed charge as Superintendent of Police on 23.02.2004. As per ruling 17 under FR 27 Petitioner is eligible for fixation of pay only from the date of assumption of charge of his junior (i.e) from 22.07.2002. Accordingly Petitioners pay has been notionally fixed in the rank of Superintendent of Police on par with his immediate junior R.Venkatraju i.e from 22.07.2002 as per ruling 17 under FR 27 and subsequent increment was also sanctioned to the Petitioner with effect from 01.07.2003. The arrears of pay and allowances was authorized to the Petitioner for the period from 23.02.2004 (i.e) from the date of assumption of charge as Superintendent of Police. Pay and allowances for the period from 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004 has not been authorized by the Pay and Accounts Officer as the Petitioner assumed charge as Superintendent of Police only on 23.02.2004. 9. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when the Petitioner was given promotion with retrospective effect fixing his seniority in the panel of the year 2001-2002, the Petitioner is eligible to get the salary in the supernumerary post from 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004. In support of his contention the learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon AIR 1991 SC 2010 , Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman. Observing that when employee was not even visited with penalty of censure the Petitioner cannot be deprived of any benefits including salary for promotional post and that principle of "No Work No Pay" is not applicable in such case. The Honble Supreme Court has held as under: "....when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/ criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore, however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, viz., “but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion”, we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentence be read in the Memorandum: “However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so.” 10. In the said case before the Supreme Court no censure was awarded to the employee. In such circumstances considering the scope of " Sealed Cover Procedure", the Supreme Court has held that employee cannot be deprived of any benefits including salary of promotional post and the Supreme court has held that "No Work No Pay" is not applicable to such case. The case on hand stands on different footing. In such circumstances considering the scope of " Sealed Cover Procedure", the Supreme Court has held that employee cannot be deprived of any benefits including salary of promotional post and the Supreme court has held that "No Work No Pay" is not applicable to such case. The case on hand stands on different footing. The Petitioner was unfit for inclusion in the panel for the year 2001-2002, because of currency of the censure. Because of subsequent charge frame his name was deleted in the panel from the year 2002-2003. In such circumstances the observation of the above decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. It is relevant to note that Honble Supreme Court has also held that there cannot be inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated from disciplinary proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period. Denying the salary to the Petitioner for the period 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004 is illegal. 11. In the petition, the Petitioner has cited an earlier instance where in one Narayanan Nair, Superintendent of Police had the benefit of creating a supernumerary post for the period which he had not worked. From the counter affidavit it comes to be known that case of Narayanan Nair stands on different footing. Narayanan Nair was not initially included in the panel for the year 1991-1992 due to overage. However, in view of the amendment of the Adhoc rules raising the age limit the said Narayanan Nair was found to be fit for inclusion in the said panel and he did not cross the age of 57 as on 01.07.1991, and the Administrative Tribunal has directed to consider the claim if he is found otherwise eligible. Subsequently Government by their order (D) No.315, Home Department, dated 17.04.2001 issued orders that Narayanan Nair to be posted as Temporary Superintendent of Police with effect from 25.05.1992. It also directed for creation of supernumerary post in the temporary post of Superintendent of Police for the period from 25.05.1992 to 28.02.1993, so as to draw pay and allowances admissible to him. 12. There is no force in the contention made by the Petitioner that he is similarly placed. In the case of the Petitioner, he is found to be unfit in the panel for the year 2001-2002. 12. There is no force in the contention made by the Petitioner that he is similarly placed. In the case of the Petitioner, he is found to be unfit in the panel for the year 2001-2002. In view of currency of punishment of censure of the crucial date of the panel year in the subsequent panel 2002-2003 was deleted from the panel as he was served with Charge Memo of 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) rules, therefore the Petitioner case falls within ambit of ruling 17 under FR 27. Hence the request of the Petitioner for creation of supernumerary post in the post of Superintendent of Police for the period from 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004 was rightly rejected by the Government. When the Petitioner has assumed charge as Superintendent of Police from 23.02.2004, the Petitioner cannot seek for supernumerary post for the period 22.07.2002 to 22.02.2004 and seek pay and allowances in the cadre of Superintendent of Police for that period. 13. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.