JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider and grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, with all consequential benefits, from retrospective due date of eligibility and entitlement or at least from the date when his juniors have been promoted, in the light of recommendation of Expert Central Selection Committee as contained in memo no. 2051 dated 07.11.2014. 2. The factual exposition, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.06.1984 and thereafter, in the year 2006 he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. It has further been averred that in the light of order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (S) No. 982 of 2011, letter as contained in memo no. 3100 dated 21.10.2011 was issued whereby directives were issued for promotion of all eligible police officials. Pursuant thereto, meeting of Central Selection Committee was convened on 30.09.2014, wherein several Inspectors of Police including the petitioner, is alleged to be found eligible for promotion on higher post and the decision of Central Selection Committee was communicated vide memo no. 2051 dated 07.11.2014 for issuance notification of promotion. But to the utter surprise and consternation, memo dated 25.03.2015 was issued, whereby 55 Inspector of Police have been promoted and the petitioner has been discriminated. 3. In the writ application, it has further been averred that when the petitioner was posted as Senior Special Branch Officer at Chas (Bokaro) on 30.12.2014 at Sharad Mahotsava, one lady was killed in police firing and for this the petitioner, was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against him, though during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner was exonerated. But, in the meantime, the petitioner has superannuated from services. 4. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Associate Counsel to learned S.C. I for the respondents-State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2016 and just after his retirement enquiry officer vide order dated 01.02.2016 has held the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Sanjay Piprawall, assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2016 and just after his retirement enquiry officer vide order dated 01.02.2016 has held the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. It has further been submitted that the respondents vide order dated 23.08.2016 has held that the petitioner is not guilty of any of the charges in the departmental proceeding and the petitioner has performed his duty with due diligence and has not committed anything against the Code of Conduct of Police Manual. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner though being thoroughly eligible for being promoted on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been denied the same on the basis of Departmental Proceeding in which the petitioner was not found guilty; and now the petitioner has retired, hence the notional and monetary benefits is accruable to the petitioner on account of grant of promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that since the petitioner has now retired, as per Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code, no benefit of promotion can be extended to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that it is true that petitioner was initially selected by the Expert Committee and a recommendation to that effect was sent vide memo no. 2051 dated 07.11.2014, however, in the meantime the Special Branch vide its letter dated 29.01.2015 reported that the petitioner was under suspension in terms of office order no. 1885/2014. Hence, the name of the petitioner did not find figure in the notification of promotion of Deputy Superintendent of Police issued vide memo dated 25.03.2015. It has further been submitted that it is an established principle of law that promotion cannot be granted to a person, who is facing a departmental enquiry at best the procedure of sealed cover has to be resorted to. 7. From perusal of record, it appears that the Central Selection Committee in its meeting held on 30.09.2014 found several Inspector of Police, including the petitioner eligible for promotion on the post of Deputy Superintended of Police and decision of Central Selection Committee was communicated vide letter as contained in memo no. 7. From perusal of record, it appears that the Central Selection Committee in its meeting held on 30.09.2014 found several Inspector of Police, including the petitioner eligible for promotion on the post of Deputy Superintended of Police and decision of Central Selection Committee was communicated vide letter as contained in memo no. 2051 dated 07.11.2014 for issuance of notification of promotion. There is no iota of doubt that on the date of recommendation i.e. 30.09.2014, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and later on for the incidence occurred on 30.12.2014, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and basing on which, the Special Branch vide its letter dated 29.01.2015 reported the matter resulting his name being excluded in the final list of promotion published vide memo dated 25.03.2015. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note here that whether 'procedure of sealed cover' was restored to or not is not clear. 8. Be that as it may be, the petitioner has now been exonerated in the departmental proceeding as charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved . It is an established principle of law that sealed cover to be opened in the case of the complete exoneration of the employee from all charges and notional promotion is to be given from the date the juniors have been given promotion. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors as reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 . 9. But, in the meantime, during pendency of the writ application, the petitioner retired from services on 31.01.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, under the circumstances, the moot question which falls for consideration as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner to meet the ends of justice. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard submitted that vide office order dated 10.02.2015, the petitioner was made In-charge, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, hence, he is entitled for the salary and consequential benefits at least from 25.03.2015 when the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard submitted that vide office order dated 10.02.2015, the petitioner was made In-charge, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, hence, he is entitled for the salary and consequential benefits at least from 25.03.2015 when the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted. 11. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings available on record, particularly the fact that petitioner has now retired and departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner has ended in exoneration of the petitioner, it would be apposite to direct the respondents to pass appropriate order for notional promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effective date when his juniors were promoted i.e. 25.03.2015 and accordingly fix his pension and other retiral dues on the enhanced scale, as admissible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.