Judgment : The same petitioner filed both these writ petitions. He joined the service of the erstwhile Rayalaseema Grameena Bank as Officer Scale-I in the year 1977. The bank has since been renamed as Andrha Pragathi Grameena Bank. The next promotion is to the post of Officer Scale –II. 2. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet in the year 1994. Another charge sheet was issued in the year 1997. Promotions to the post of officers Scale-II were taken up in the year 1998. However, in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, his case was considered, but the result of consideration was kept in a sealed cover. The disciplinary proceedings, against the petitioner ended without any blemish upon him. In view of this development, the respondents opened the sealed cover vide proceedings, 28-08-2010. Since the petitioner was found eligible to be promoted, he was extended the benefit of promotion as well as notional regularization and seniority with effect from 18-12-1998. His pay scale was also fixed in the post of Officer Scale-II. However, he was not extended the benefit of arrears of the salary for the post of Officer Scale-II with effect from 18-12-1998. 3. The respondents have taken up promotions to the post of officers Scale-III. On finding that his name was not shown in the seniority list in the cadre of Officer Scale-II, the petitioner filed WP No.33685 of 2010 with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in not including his name in the seniority list, in the cadre of Officer Scale-II. He has also sought for a consequential direction to consider his case for promotion to the next higher post on par with his juniors. 4. WP No.20901 of 2011 is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to extend the monetory benefits on par with the officers, who were promoted to the post of Officers Scale-II in the year 1998. The petitioner contends that once he was found not guilty of charges, he is entitled to be extended the monitory and other benefits on par with his batch-mates. 5. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. The fact that the sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of the petitioner is not disputed. According to them, the petitioner was extended all the benefits, which he is entitled to in law, after the disciplinary proceedings ended in his favour. 6. 5. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. The fact that the sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of the petitioner is not disputed. According to them, the petitioner was extended all the benefits, which he is entitled to in law, after the disciplinary proceedings ended in his favour. 6. Heard Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Srininvasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The petitioner became eligible to be considered for the promotion to the post of Officer Scale-II in the year 1998. Since the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him by that time, the sealed cover procedure was adopted. According to this, the result of consideration of an employee, facing disciplinary proceedings; for promotion to a higher post, is mentioned in a proceedings sheet and the same is kept in a sealed cover. For all practical purposes, the result of consideration is kept in a suspended animation, till the bar on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, ceases. If any punishment is imposed, the employee would forego the benefit of promotion. On the other hand, if he is exonerated of all the charges the cover should be opened and in case, it emerges he was found fit for promotion, not only the benefit of promotion must be extended, but also he shall be brought on par with the other batch-mates in terms of seniority, emoluments etc. 8. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended in his favour. Taking the same into account, the respondents opened the sealed cover on their own accord and issued proceedings, dated 28-08-2010. 9. The petitioner, no doubt, was extended the benefit of promotion, seniority and pay scale on par with others, who were promoted in the year 1998. However, he was not extended the benefit of arrears of salary, being the difference of pay. It was for no fault of him, that the promotion was denied. Once, the cloud upon his entitlement is removed, he is entitled to get the same benefit, which his immediate junior in the feeder category got, on promotion. Further, the name of the petitioner was required to be shown at an appropriate place in the seniority list for the post of Officer Scale-II and he ought have been considered for promotion to the next higher post of Officers Scale-III. 10. Further, the name of the petitioner was required to be shown at an appropriate place in the seniority list for the post of Officer Scale-II and he ought have been considered for promotion to the next higher post of Officers Scale-III. 10. Hence, the both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to extend all the benefits to the petitioner as though he was promoted to the post of Officer Scale-II in the year 1998 along with other candidates that were promoted at that point of time, including the assignment of appropriate place in the seniority list for the post of Officer Scale-II and payment of arrears of salary on account of the belated promotion. There shall be no order as to costs.