ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is denial of actual salary for the period the petitioner was granted notional promotion. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 10.8.1990. The departmental proceeding came to an end with effect from 5.5.2000. 4. Learned counsel submits that during the aforesaid period the DPC was held on 16.5.1988 and again on 29.11.1995. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Janaki Raman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 held out that in the event departmental proceeding or criminal case is pending the competent authority is required to adopt seal cover proceeding and the recommendation of the DSC has to be acted upon after the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. 5. In the present case the departmental proceeding was concluded in 2000 but respondent are sitting tight over the matter. They could only take decision in the matter of promotion of the petitioner in 2014 whereas the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.2011. 6. Learned counsel submits that delay in the matter of disposal of claim of the petitioner and action in teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in Janaki Raman (supra) refers the entire action of the respondents bad. He submits that petitioner cannot be subjected to the denial of actual monetary benefit. He also refers to Annexure-4 which is decision of the Director, Primary Education dated 10.5.2013. The relevant part of the aforesaid decision dated 10.5.2013 quoted hereinbelow indicates that the incumbent is entitled to monetary benefit from the date juniors have been granted such benefit. ^^vxj fdlh dkj.ko'k izksUufr lfefr esa fdlh ojh; dehZ dh izksUufr ugha gks ikrk gS tcfd muls duh; dehZ dh izksUufr gks tkrh gsS ,oa ,sls vkosnu izkIr gksrs gSa rks ,sls ekeys dh leh{kk dj ,d fo'ks"k ftyk izksUufr lfefr dh cSBd cqykdj mUgsa foÙk foHkkxh; i= la[;k 7020 fnukad 28-12-2005 ds vkyksd esa duh; dh frfFk ls vkfFkZd ykHk lfgr izksUufr nh tk;A 7. In view of the above, the Court has no difficulty in holding that petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefit on account of conclusion of departmental proceeding from the date juniors have been granted such promotion as after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the respondents were under obligation to obey the recommendation which was kept in sealed cover and once that is resorted to the respondents have to grant monetary benefit as per recommendation of the departmental promotion committee. 8. In view of the above, the Court cannot approve the action of the respondents in denying monetary benefit and granting notional promotion from 29.11.1995. The respondents have to grant monetary benefit for such promotion with effect from 29.11.1995. 9. Necessary decision granting such actual monetary benefit must be taken by the respondents at the earliest preferably which a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.