JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. The respondents in O.A. No.1142 of 2015 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The respondent herein, while working as Sub Treasury Officer at Vellayambalam, was suspended from service as per order dated 19.07.2000 of the 2 nd petitioner, alleging that she was involved in fraudulent withdrawal of money to the tune of Rs.19,11,882/- from the Sub Treasury, Vellayambalam. Being found innocent, she was reinstated in service on 02.12.2000, and no disciplinary action had been taken against her. According to the respondent, during the period of her suspension, four of her juniors were promoted as Assistant District Treasury Officers. Because of the suspension, the respondent was denied due promotion to the post of Assistant District Treasury Officer and then as District Treasury Officer. Onam festival allowance and special festival allowance for 2000-01 and 2001-02 were also denied to her. She was also denied the benefit of terminal surrender. Based on Annexure A2 letter dated 25.01.2011 of the Government, by Annexure A1 order dated 12.09.2011, the 2 nd petitioner regularised the period of suspension of the respondent from 19.07.2000 to 02.12.2000 as duty for all purposes, including pay and allowances. In view of Annexure A1 order, the respondent submitted Annexure A3 representation dated 23.03.2012 before the 2 nd petitioner claiming all service benefits, treating her period of suspension as duty, including promotion to the post of Assistant District Treasury Officer and then as District Treasury Officer with effect from the due date and the consequential benefits. Since no action had been taken in Annexure A3 representation, the respondent submitted Annexure A4 representation dated 12.12.2013 before the 2 nd petitioner. Since no orders have been passed in Annexure A4 also, the respondent approached the Government with Annexure A5 representation dated 25.06.2014. She further approached the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Chief Minister with a representation dated 31.12.2014 and also submitted Annexure A6 representation dated 31.03.2015 before the Government. By Annexure A7 Government Order dated 28.04.2015, the respondent was granted notional promotion to the cadre of Assistant District Treasury Officer and District Treasury Officer with effect from 08.09.2000 and 31.12.2001, respectively. She further approached the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Chief Minister with a representation dated 31.12.2014 and also submitted Annexure A6 representation dated 31.03.2015 before the Government. By Annexure A7 Government Order dated 28.04.2015, the respondent was granted notional promotion to the cadre of Assistant District Treasury Officer and District Treasury Officer with effect from 08.09.2000 and 31.12.2001, respectively. Her probation in the cadre of Assistant District Treasury Officer was declared with effect from 08.03.2001. According to the respondent, she is entitled to be promoted as Assistant District Treasury Officer with effect from 27.07.2000 and as District Treasury Officer with effect from 28.12.2001, the dates on which her immediate juniors were promoted to that post. Her pay and pension are also liable to be revised based on the above promotions. Claiming that Annexure A7 is illegal to the extent the respondent was not promoted with effect from the dates of promotion of her juniors and also aggrieved by the denial of arrears of pay consequent to her promotions with retrospective effect, the respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985. 3. In the original application, the 1 st petitioner filed a reply statement dated 30.10.2015, contending that arrears of salary, consequent on notional promotion shall not be admissible in the light of Rule 23(a) of the Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ in short) Part I, as she has not performed the duties of Assistant District Treasury Officer or District Treasury Officer during the period of suspension. Relying on the very same provisions, it is contended that salary arrears consequent on notional promotion are also not admissible, and special sanction for drawing special festival allowance cannot be given in view of Circular No.19/2005/Fin. dated 22.04.2005, since the claim relates to a period prior to five years. It is contended in the reply statement that the Government has sanctioned all the service benefits admissible to the respondent and no discrimination has been shown towards her. 4. By the impugned order dated 17.07.2017, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent and allowed the original application. Paragraphs 8 to 12 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “8. 4. By the impugned order dated 17.07.2017, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent and allowed the original application. Paragraphs 8 to 12 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the principle of 'No work No pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and the right to receive the full benefits of orders having retrospective effect depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai (2007(2) KHC 972). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that her promotions were delayed not due to any fault on her part and it was the respondent who prevented the applicant from discharging the duties attached to the promoted post. 9. Learned Govt. Pleader submits that what is now granted to the applicant is only a notional promotion and 'not a retrospective promotion and therefore she cannot claim consequential monetary benefits. But the Hon'ble High Court in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (1978 KLT 29) has held against the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader. It was held as follows: "Notional promotion is one which a Government servant gets under particular exigencies of situation, which he cannot claim as of right. Here, the petitioner is entitled as of right to get his promotion from 1.4.1955 and therefore his claim for arrears of salary and other material benefit cannot be denied to him on the plea that what was given to him was only a notional promotion and the policy of the Government is not to give the arrears of salary in such cases". 10. In the case of the applicant herein also she was illegally suspended without any justifiable reason and even after reinstatement she was not given the due promotions when her juniors were promoted. There is no justifiable reason for having denied her the benefit of such promotion and it will amount to penalising her again by denying the monetary benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. ( AIR 2016 SC 157 ) as follows: "The fault lies on the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. ( AIR 2016 SC 157 ) as follows: "The fault lies on the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering service the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self-serving plea of denying him wages on the plea of the principle of 'No work No pay". 11. Relying on the above decision, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner is in no way responsible for the denial of her due promotion and she is not liable to give up her right for monetary benefits which is entitled to her on due promotions. There is considerable force in the above contention and I find no reason as to why the applicant should suffer for the failure of the respondents to act promptly. 12. In such circumstances, the condition in Annexure A7 order that the applicant would not be eligible for back arrears on notional promotion cannot be supported. The said condition in Annexure A7 is hereby set aside. The applicant is entitled to get all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances on her promotion as Assistant Treasury Officer with effect from 8.9.2000 and District Treasury Officer with effect from 31.12.2001. For the same reasons her claim for Onam festival allowance and Special Festival allowance also are to be sanctioned. The 1st and 2nd respondents shall pass necessary orders in this regard expeditiously and release the amounts due to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is allowed to the above extent”. 5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the respondent raised a belated claim for monetary relief only after the regularisation of her suspension by the 2 nd petitioner. The Original Application is allowed to the above extent”. 5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the respondent raised a belated claim for monetary relief only after the regularisation of her suspension by the 2 nd petitioner. The Tribunal ought not to have appreciated that in the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala and others v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai (2007(2) KHC 972) , the relief was granted only from the date of filing of the writ petition in that case, that too while the incumbent was in service and not from any day before. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that as per Rule 23(a) of Part I of KSR, in the case of appointment involving change of duties, an officer begins to draw the pay and allowance attached to his tenure of post only with effect from the date of actual assumption of the duties of that post. In those circumstances, by granting notional promotion, the respondent is not entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it was no fault of the respondent that she was suspended from service from 19.07.2000 to 02.12.2000. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. Later, by Annexure A1 order dated 12.09.2011, the 2 nd petitioner regularised the service of the respondent during this period of suspension. However, the juniors to the respondent were promoted to the post of Assistant District Treasury Officer and District Treasury Officer, respectively, since the respondent was under suspension. Therefore, she was granted notional promotion by Annexure A7 order dated 28.04.2015. Noting all these circumstances based on the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred in the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the original application, and no interference is warranted to that order. 8. Therefore, she was granted notional promotion by Annexure A7 order dated 28.04.2015. Noting all these circumstances based on the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred in the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the original application, and no interference is warranted to that order. 8. The scope of interference of the High Court by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by the Apex Court in M/s Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate Pvt.Ltd. [ (2001) 8 SCC 97 ] and held that the order under challenge can be set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the findings are based on no evidence at all or are also perverse that no reasonable person could come to such conclusion. 9. We have carefully gone through the materials on record and the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is borne out from the materials on record and from the impugned order that the respondent was suspended from service for no fault of her. The suspension period was subsequently regularised by the 2 nd petitioner by Annexure A1 order. Taking into consideration her representation, the Government issued Annexure A7 order dated 28.04.2015, granting notional promotion to the respondent to the post of Assistant District Treasury Officer and also to the post of District Treasury Officer, respectively, the dates from which her juniors were promoted to that post. By relying on the judgment of this Court in Narayana Menon [ 1978 KLT 29 ] and the judgment of the Apex Court in Shobha Ram Raturi [ AIR 2016 SC 157 ] the Tribunal found that the respondent has made out sufficient ground to hold that the condition in Annexure A7 order that she is not eligible for back wages on notional promotion, cannot be supported. It was in that circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the original application. 10. The contention raised by the petitioners based on Rule 23(a) of Part 1 KSR is seen raised by them in the reply statement filed in the original application. The said Rule read thus: “23(a). It was in that circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the original application. 10. The contention raised by the petitioners based on Rule 23(a) of Part 1 KSR is seen raised by them in the reply statement filed in the original application. The said Rule read thus: “23(a). Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules, an Officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. If the charge is transferred afternoon, the transfer does not affect pay and allowances until the next day. Exception - An officer deputed for a course of instruction or training which is ordered to be treated as duty, if promoted to a higher post in the regular line during such course of instruction or training, may draw the pay thereof without joining it, the benefit of promotion being given from the date his junior assumes charge of the higher post.” 11. A reading of Rule 23 (a) of Part 1 KSR would make it clear that the said Rule can be applied only to normal cases of appointments, promotions, postings etc. and not in respect of special cases as that of the respondent, who was denied the benefit of promotion for no fault of her. Moreover, in the light of the principles laid down in Narayana Menon [ 1978 KLT 29 ] and in Shobha Ram Raturi [ AIR 2016 SC 157 ] , it is only to be held that the contention of the petitioners based on Rule 23 (a) of Part 1 KSR that since the respondent did not actually assume the duties of the post of Assistant District Treasury Officer or District Treasury Officer is not entitled to monetary benefits has no merits. 12. Though the petitioners contend that the respondent raised a belated claim, we are not inclined to accept that contention for the simple reason that the cause of action of claiming the benefits, such as promotion and the consequential service benefits claimed by the respondent, arose only on regularisation of service, which was done only on 12.09.2011 by Annexure A1 order. Though the petitioners contend that the respondent raised a belated claim, we are not inclined to accept that contention for the simple reason that the cause of action of claiming the benefits, such as promotion and the consequential service benefits claimed by the respondent, arose only on regularisation of service, which was done only on 12.09.2011 by Annexure A1 order. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no reason to say that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which warrants interference of this Court by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.