Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 15.10.1984. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 15.10.1995. He was further promoted as Head Constable on 01.05.2002. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been upgraded as Special Sub Inspector of Police in 2012 i.e., on completion of 10 years of service as Head Constable. The petitioner has completed 25 years of service. When the upgradation took place during 2012, as on crucial date, the punishment order dated 12.1.2011, imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, was in operation. The said punishment admittedly came to an end on 11.1.2012. Hence, he should have been considered for promotion in 2013, when his juniors were promoted by an order dated 7.5.2013 of the second respondent, pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent, dated 7.5.2013. 4. Since the petitioner was not upgraded in the said order dated 7.5.2012, he has fled this writ petition, seeking for a direction to upgrade him as Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 1.5.2013 in the light of G.O. (Ms) No.15 (Pol.V) Department, dated 7.1.2010 and in the light of Full Bench judgment of this court reported in 2011 (3) C.T.C.129 (The Deputy Inspector General fo Police, Thanjavur Range v. V.Rani) with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The petitioner was not considered for upgradation during 2012, since the punishment order dated 12.1.2011 was in currency. The same expired on 12.1.2012. 7. The Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2011 (3) C.T.C.129 (cited supra), inparagraph No.28(5)has held that after the currency of the punishment is over, the same cannot be relied on to deny the promotion on the ground of check period. Para 28(5) is extracted hereunder:-"28(5) Consequently, the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of 'check period viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the statutory Rules." 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the second respondent upgrading various persons. According to the petitioner, most of them are his juniors. 9. In these circumstances, I am inclined to issue direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner to upgrade him from the date on which his juniors were upgraded by order dated 7.5.2013 as Special Sub Inspector of Police in the light of G.O. (Ms) No.15 (Pol.V) Department, dated 7.1.2010 and in the light of Full Bench judgment referred to above, within a period of eighty weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no other impediment. No costs.