ORDER : Abdul Quddhose, J. [PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in C.No.A1/449/67/2017 dated 03.08.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to give arrears of all monetary benefits with effect from the date of notional promotion given to the petitioner in the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 01.08.2010 to till 16.08.2016 with 18% interest.] This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 03.08.2017, rejecting the petitioner's request for monetary benefits from 01.08.2010 to 16.08.2016. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents having treated the period from 01.08.2010 to 16.08.2016 as duty period, ought to have granted the monetary benefits to the petitioner for the said period. Earlier, the petitioner was facing departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution was also launched against him. Admittedly, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner ended in acquittal and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner was also dropped. The petitioner has also filed the copy of the proceedings dated 26.07.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police [Head Quarters, Madurai City] pertaining to the petitioner, wherein it has been made clear that his suspension period ie., from 30.12.2008 to 02.01.2010 has been treated as duty period for all purposes and he shall be paid full pay and allowances. In the very same proceedings, it was directed to pay the petitioner the arrears of pay and allowances for the suspension period, after deducting the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner earlier during the suspension period. The relevant observations of the Deputy Commissioner of Police [Head Quarters, Madurai City] as in his proceedings dated 26.07.2016 is extracted hereunder : “7. HC 1120 Muruganandam had undergone suspension during the period from 30.12.2008 AN to 02.01.2010 AN. His suspension period has to be treated as duty since further action in departmental as well as criminal have been ordered to drop. 8. Therefore the suspension period spent by HC 1120 Muruganandam from 30.12.2008 FN to 02.01.2010 AN may be treated as duty for all purposes and shall be paid full pay and allowances as provided in FR 54(B)(9). 9. 8. Therefore the suspension period spent by HC 1120 Muruganandam from 30.12.2008 FN to 02.01.2010 AN may be treated as duty for all purposes and shall be paid full pay and allowances as provided in FR 54(B)(9). 9. The arrears of pay and allowances for above period will be drawn and paid to him separately by deducting the subsistence grant amount already received by HC 1120 Muruganandam.” 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent before this Court, they relied upon FR-27 Ruling 17 of the Fundamental Rule, to support their contention that the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits from the date of notional promotion given to the petitioner in the post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 01.08.2010 till 16.08.2016. As according to them, monetary benefits as claimed by the petitioner cannot be paid retrospectively as per FR-27 Ruling 17, which is reproduced hereunder : “FR-27-Ruling-17:- In case, where a Government servant has been overlooked for promotion / appointment to the next higher post, but subsequently promoted / appointed to that higher post after restoration of his original seniority on appeal, his pay shall be fixed on the date of assumption of charge in the higher post on par with the pay of his junior provided he has drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post from time to time. If he has not drawn the same rate of pay as his junior in the lower post, his pay shall be fixed, on the date of assumption of charge, at the stage at which he would have drawn pay on that date had he been promoted / appointed to the higher post along with his junior. In case, where seniority has been restored on or after 19th September, 1981, arrears of pay and allowances consequent of fixation of pay shall be admissible with effect from the date of assumption of charge in the higher post; in cases where seniority has been restored prior to 19th September 1981, arrears shall be admissible only with effect from the above date.” 4. In FR-27 Ruling-17, referred to supra, it will have a bearing only if the restoration of the original seniority had happened based on an order passed in an appeal. In FR-27 Ruling-17, referred to supra, it will have a bearing only if the restoration of the original seniority had happened based on an order passed in an appeal. In the instant case, neither any appeal was filed by the petitioner nor any punishment was imposed on him in the departmental proceedings initiated against him. On their own volition subsequent to the acquittal order passed by the Criminal Court in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have dropped the disciplinary charges framed against the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner was suspended from service and subsequent to the dropping of the charges against him, the period of suspension was also treated as duty period as seen from the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, [Head Quarters, Madurai City]. When the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings have been dropped and no punishment has been imposed in the departmental proceedings, as the departmental proceedings never was concluded, the question of applying FR-27 Ruling-17 relied upon by the respondents does not arise. 5. FR-27 Ruling-17 makes it clear that only in cases where in an appeal, the original seniority of the petitioner has been restored, the applicability of FR-27 Ruling-17 comes into play. In the case on hand, as observed earlier, such an eventuality has not happened as neither punishment has been imposed on the petitioner nor any appeal was filed by the petitioner. Having dropped the charges framed against the petitioner and the criminal case against the petitioner has also got ended in acquittal and the suspension period having been treated as the duty period by the respondents, the respondents ought to have granted monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of his notional promotion as Special Sub Inspector of Police, ie., with effect from 01.08.2010 till 16.08.2016, when the respondent normally granted promotion to the petitioner as Special Sub inspector of Police. However, by total non-application of mind to the aforesaid facts, the third respondent by erroneously applying FR-27 Ruling-17 has rejected the petitioner's request for grant of arrears and all monetary benefits with effect from the date of the notional promotion in the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 01.08.2010 till 16.08.2016. Necessarily, the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the third respondent has to be quashed and the writ petition will have to be allowed. 6. Necessarily, the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the third respondent has to be quashed and the writ petition will have to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order of the third respondent dated 03.08.2017 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed by directing the first respondent to pay the arrears of all monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of his notional promotion as Special Sub Inspector of Police ie., from 01.08.2010 to 16.08.2016, the date of the formal promotion of the petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of Police, within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Eventhough the petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 18% p.a., the same is not granted by this Court, after giving due consideration to the fact that there was no intentional role played by the respondents in not paying the monetary benefits as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.