JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2010, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 9809/2008 titled Subhash Sood versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein came to be allowed and respondents were commanded to release the arrears of salary with effect from 22.4.1989 to the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein, for short “the impugned judgment”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Brief facts, as emerges from the record are that writ petitioner Subhash Sood was facing a trial in FIR No.114 of 1985, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dehra, in which he came to be acquitted, was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1998, before this Court, which too, was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6.5.2002. 3. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings and the trial, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. The suspension order was revoked vide order dated 16.10.2002. It is apt to reproduce the said order herein. “OFFICE ORDER. Shri Subhash Sood, Accounts Clerk presently working in Himachal Emporium, Shimla was suspended vide letter No. HPSHHC. PF:217/18-4240-43 dated 28.6.1984 and reinstated vide letter No. HPSHHC:PF:217/18-2112-15 dated 8th May, 1990. Now consequent upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court dated 6th May, 2002, in the Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1998, Police Challan U/S 409 IPC against Shri Subhash Sood, the matter regarding treatment to be given to his suspension period has been considered and it is ordered that the period of suspension of Shri Subhash Sood from 20.6.1984 to 8.5.1990 shall be treated as period spent on duty and he shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended.” 4. It is evident from the order referred to supra that the suspension period of the writ petitioner was treated on duty. 5. The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered during both the proceedings and sealed-cover procedure was followed. The department, after noticing the aforesaid orders, opened the sealedcover and promoted the petitioner w.e.f. 22.4.1989, vide order dated 26.10.2002. The copy of the said order was not on the file. However, Mr. 5. The case of the petitioner for promotion was considered during both the proceedings and sealed-cover procedure was followed. The department, after noticing the aforesaid orders, opened the sealedcover and promoted the petitioner w.e.f. 22.4.1989, vide order dated 26.10.2002. The copy of the said order was not on the file. However, Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 made the copy of the said order available across the Board, made part of the file. It is also apt to reproduce the said order herein. “OFFICE ORDER. Consequent upon the decision in the court case filed in Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1998, Police Challan U/S 409-IPC against Shri Subhash Sood, Accounts Clerk and as per recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee kept in sealed cover, Shri Subhash Sood, Accounts Clerk is hereby promoted to the post of Accountant (now Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the pay grade of Rs.570-1080 (prerevised) with effect from 22.4.1989.” 6. While going through the order quoted supra, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein was promoted w.e.f. 22.4.1989 without any caps, fetters and restrictions. Thus, respondents have fallen in an error in not releasing the service benefit of the said period to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein w.e.f. 22.4.1989. 7. Having said so, the impugned judgment is well reasoned, needs no interference. Accordingly it is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.