JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - Heard through Video Conference (Blue Jeans App). This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, seeking to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No.14333/LEP.B/99, dated 23.7.1999, which was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 16.8.2004 passed in O.A.No.3548 of 2000, as illegal and arbitrary, so far as it relates to not granting monitory benefits and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the monetary benefits attached to the Post of Physiotherapist on par with one R.Krupasekharudu, who is the admittedly junior of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that while he was working as Non-Medical Assistant in Sub-Centre, Amadagur of Government Leprosy Control Unit, Kadiri, Anantapur District, he was promoted and posted as Physiotherapist in the Temporary Hospitalization Ward (Leprosy) Government General Hospital, Kurnool by order dated 18.1.1999 along with one R.Krupasekharudu, who is admittedly junior to him. The petitioner was relieved from Amadagar on 01.2.1999 and reported to District Leprosy Officer, who refused to admit the petitioner to duty. On that, the petitioner, reported to the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent refused to admit him to duty on the ground that the promotion order has not been marked to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner sent his joining report by way of courier on 3.2.1999. 4. Later, on 6.2.1999 the Medical Officer issued an endorsement stating that there is no existing vacancy of Physiotherapist sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.171. Accordingly, the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, issued proceedings dated 6.2.1999 requesting the 3rd respondent to post the petitioner elsewhere. But, the 3rd respondent, in stead of issuing posting orders, issued proceedings dated 16.2.1999 by cancelling the promotion of both the petitioner and R.Krupasekharudu and directed them to report in the old post of Non-Medical Assistant on the alleged ground that the post of Physiotherapist has been converted as Gazetted Post with effect from 4.1.1999 and appointing authority is the Direct of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.926 of 1999 before the Tribunal questioning the proceedings dated 16.2.1999 and the Tribunal suspended the said proceedings by way of interim order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.926 of 1999 before the Tribunal questioning the proceedings dated 16.2.1999 and the Tribunal suspended the said proceedings by way of interim order. In spite of the said interim order, the petitioner was not admitted to duty. On that, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.283 of 1999. After receiving the notice in the said application, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 23.7.1999 posting him as Physiotherapist in Government Leprosy Control Unit, Rajampet, Kadapa District, notionally from 6.3.1999 without monetary benefits on par with R.Krupasekharudu. Subsequently, Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.926 of 1999 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Physiotherapist. But, the respondents did not pay the monetary benefits. As such, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3548 of 2000 before the Tribunal seeking monetary benefits. The Tribunal while upholding all the contentions, refused to grant the monetary benefits. Hence, the writ petition. 5. The respondents filed detailed counter stating that in view of the directions dated 23.7.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner was promoted as Physiotherapist and posted to Government Leprosy Control Unit, Rajampeta, which had fallen vacant on 31.5.1999 due to the retirement, duly following the orders issued in Rc. No.14333/LEP.B/99, dated 23.7.1999 of the Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, By realizing the mistake of giving benefit to Junior earlier to petitioner (Senior), the notional promotion was given to him with effect from 6.3.1999 on par with his Junior R.Krupasekharudu. The petitioner was given notional seniority in order to get over the difficulty of seniority, but monetary benefit was not given. One post was vacant at the time of giving promotion and in that post, one R.Krupasekharudu was already accommodated and the petitioner was accommodated in the subsequent vacancy by giving notional benefit of seniority as he is senior to R.Krupasekharudu. As the petitioner did not discharge the duties of Physiotherapist actually, he cannot claim the monetary benefits for the post of Physiotherapist. 6. We gave our anxious consideration to the factual and legal position involved in this case. Admittedly, R. Krupasekharudu was junior to the petitioner in the post of non medical assistant. Both of them were promoted as Physiotherapist in the Temporary Hospitalisation Ward (Leprosy), Government General Hospital, Kurnool by the order dated 18.01.1999. However, they were not admitted in to the promotional posts and reverted. Admittedly, R. Krupasekharudu was junior to the petitioner in the post of non medical assistant. Both of them were promoted as Physiotherapist in the Temporary Hospitalisation Ward (Leprosy), Government General Hospital, Kurnool by the order dated 18.01.1999. However, they were not admitted in to the promotional posts and reverted. Thereafter, R. Krupasekharudu filed O.A.No.843 of 1999 questioning the reversion order and the Tribunal issued interim orders on 19.02.1999 suspending the impugned order dated 16.02.1999. In view of the interim directions, R. Krupasekharudu was posted as Physiotherapist at GLC Unit, Kurnool in the existing vacancy on 06.03.1999. Subsequently, O.A.No.843 of 1999 was allowed on 13.07.1999 with a direction to continue R. Krupasekharudu in the existing vacancy as Physiotherapist. In his turn, the Writ Petitioner also filed O.A.No.926 of 1999 and Tribunal issued interim order on 26.02.1999 suspending the proceedings dated 16.02.1999 issued by the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Cuddapah. It appears the interim order was not implemented on the ground that there was no existing vacancy of Physiotherapist as on the date of interim direction. However, subsequently one post of Physiotherapist at GLC Unit, Rajampet, Cuddapah fell vacant on 31.05.1999 due to retirement on superannuation and in that vacancy, the petitioner was posted as Physiotherapist vide promotion order dated 14.06.1999. Hence, the petitioner sought for monitory benefit on par with his junior R. Krupasekharudu which was denied. Hence, he filed O.A.No.3548 of 2000 challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.14333/LEP.B/99, dated 23.07.1999 for not granting monitory benefits on par with his junior and sought for a direction to grant monitory benefits for the promotional post Physiotherapist for the interregnum period i.e., from 01.02.1999 to 23.07.1999. 7. The impugned order in O.A.No.3548 of 2000 shows that the Lower Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the main observation that in the order in O.A.No.926 of 1999, the Tribunal directed the applicant to continue in the existing vacancy as Physiotherapist and no order was passed granting monitory benefits to the petitioner from 01.02.1999 and the said order worked out against the applicant and he did not question the observation of the Tribunal in the said O.A. We are unable to accept this observation because admittedly R. Krupasekharudu was junior to the petitioner. Because he happened to file O.A earlier to the petitioner and obtained interim order, he was accommodated in promotion post and subsequently his O.A was also allowed and he was directed to be continued in the promotional post. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed O.A.No.926 of 1999 and the said O.A was allowed in terms of the O.A.No.843 of 1999. In that view, it is not apposite to deny him the monitory benefits though the same was not mentioned in O.A.No.926 of 1999. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No.14333/LEP.B/99, dated 23.7.1999, which was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by its order dated 16.8.2004 passed in O.A.No.3548 of 2000, in so far as, it relates to not granting monitory benefits, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner all the monitory benefits attached to the post of Physiotherapist w.e.f 01.02.1999 to 23.07.1999. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.