ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… declaring that the petitioner is entitled to have his suspension period from 27.07.1988 to 25.09.2001 as on duty for all purposes including pay, increments, arrears of pay and pension duly re-fixing petitioner’s pay and pension in terms of PRC 2005 and 2010 together with an interest of 18% per annum from the date of petitioner’s retirement from service i.e., 30.9.2011 to the date on which actual payment was made and further be notionally promoted as Head Constable (Civil) on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits duly holding the action of the respondents in effecting delayed payment of pensionary and retirement benefits and further treating the suspension period of thirteen (13) years as not on duty on the basis of external dictation vide impugned D.O.No.6895 (No.L&O/B9/1950/2014) dated 28.11.2014 issued by the 3 rd respondent and the Memo no.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011 dated 3.9.2014 issued by 1 st respondent and thereby denying promotion without any justification as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India ….” 2) Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) in Hyderabad City Police during the year 1977. While so, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail along with others in connection with three criminal cases. Hence, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 22.07.1988 by respondent No.3 and subsequently he was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 25.09.2001 issued by respondent No.3. Further, the suspension of the petitioner was never reviewed and he was continued under prolonged suspension for more than 13 years. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 11.08.2004 in C.C. Nos.360, 361 and 362 of 1993, the petitioner was acquitted by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in all the criminal cases. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on 30.09.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation and by the said time, the petitioner was not under currency of any departmental or criminal proceedings and the petitioner was not sanctioned full retirement and pensionery benefits and was sanctioned only anticipatory pension vide proceedings dated 20.10.2012 and gratuity in the year 2015 and final payment was effected in the year 2017 i.e. almost 6 years after his retirement. Thereafter, full pension was sanctioned in the year 2015 and revised pension in the year 2017. Thereafter, full pension was sanctioned in the year 2015 and revised pension in the year 2017. Pursuant to the series of representations submitted by the petitioner seeking to regularize the period of suspension, the Government vide Memo No.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2014, has rejected the request of the petitioner and treated the period of suspension of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ without assigning any reasons except stating that suspension is justified. Though the petitioner filed a Review Petition challenging the order dated 03.09.2014, till date no orders are passed thereon. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3) Heard Mr. V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for the respondents. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases, several of his juniors were promoted as Head Constables (Civil) but the case of the petitioner was overlooked for promotion without any justification. Learned counsel has further submitted that treating the suspension period of more than 13 years as not on duty amounts to imposition of harsher punishment than imposing any penalty contemplated under the Rules. The discretion conferred upon the authorities should be exercised reasonably and rationally but not arbitrarily. Further, by virtue of the decision taken by respondent No.1, petitioner was denied increments for 13 years and the same had a cascading effect on his pay and pension. Learned counsel has further contended that though the co-accused were given the benefit of treating the suspension period as on duty for all purposes, the petitioner was singled out and the same offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India . It is further contended that as the respondents are responsible for delay in sanctioning and paying pensionary benefits, petitioner is entitled for interest @ 18% per annum for the date of retirement till actual payment. Further, the petitioner was also denied the benefit of PRC 2005 and 2010, due to which, the petitioner is receiving a meager pension of Rs.12,000/- while his counterparts are drawing more than Rs.27,000/- per month. Petitioner was also denied promotion without any justification while several of his juniors were promoted to the next higher category. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for notional promotion on par with his juniors atleast from the date of his acquittal in criminal cases in the year 2004. Petitioner was also denied promotion without any justification while several of his juniors were promoted to the next higher category. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for notional promotion on par with his juniors atleast from the date of his acquittal in criminal cases in the year 2004. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to issue suitable directions to the respondents and allow the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. , [ 2013 (3) SCC 73 ] 5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that while the petitioner was working in Traffic Compounding Booth at Traffic Branch, Hyderabad, he misappropriated Government money to the tune of Rs.2,41,040/- collected by way of fines during the period FR om 14.10.1985 to 14.04.1987 for which a case in crime No.142/1988 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code , wherein he was arrayed as A.1. In connection with said criminal case, petitioner was arrested on 21.07.1988, remained in judicial custody till 30.07.1988 and later released on bail. Subsequently, the case was transferred to CID on 25.03.1988 for further investigation. As such, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide office D.O.No.2006/88, dated 22.07.1988 and for every six months his suspension was reviewed and decided to continue under suspension in view of gravity of allegations. Learned Government Pleader has further submitted that vide office order dated 10.05.1993, an oral enquiry was ordered by appointing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chatrinaka Division, as Inquiry Authority. However, due to revision of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, the oral enquiry ordered was cancelled vide office Memo dated 27.12.1995 and departmental proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner under the new Rules as the material record was lying with CID. However, the petitioner was released FR om suspension vide office order dated 25.09.2001 pending disciplinary action. Further, the petitioner was acquitted FR om the criminal case in C.C. No.361/1993 vide judgment dated 11.08.2004 by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Subsequently, letter dated 24.08.2005 was addressed to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, seeking clarification whether to drop further action as the delinquency is more than 17 years old. Further, the petitioner was acquitted FR om the criminal case in C.C. No.361/1993 vide judgment dated 11.08.2004 by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Subsequently, letter dated 24.08.2005 was addressed to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, seeking clarification whether to drop further action as the delinquency is more than 17 years old. In reply, the Government vide Memo dated 20.06.2006 requested to send report as to the action taken against the official prosecution witnesses who did not support the prosecution and also to take action against the Investigating Officer for perfunctory investigation, due to which the case ended in acquittal. Accordingly, letter dated 31.01.2008 was addressed to Addl. Director General of Police, CID, AP, Hyderabad, to send report on the action taken against the Investigating Officer. Further, a report dated 14.02.2008 was also sent to the Government by mentioning the details and names of officials who did not depose properly in the Court due to which the case ended in acquittal and the orders FR om the Government are awaited. Further, the Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad, also addressed a letter vide Memo dated 08.04.2011 seeking to issue orders regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner retired FR om service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011. As such, another letter dated 19.03.2012 was addressed to the Director General of Police, AP, Hyderabad, to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Government issued Memo dated 03.09.2014 while regularizing the suspension period FR om 27.07.1988 to 25.09.2011 directed to treat the said as not on duty. It is further submitted that since the departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner, his case was not considered for promotion to the higher cadre. Further, pursuant to the request of the petitioner for release of consequential benefits on par with the co-accused, respondent No.2 vide letter Rc.No.187/T2/2015, dated 06.11.2015, has informed respondent No.2 that earlier the Government vide Memo No.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2014, has requested to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ in terms of FR 54-b (7) and thereby requested respondent No.1 to take necessary action in the matter. However, the orders are awaited FR om respondent No.1. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the record. However, the orders are awaited FR om respondent No.1. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the record. 7) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, vide Memo No.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2014, the period of suspension of the petitioner from 27.07.1988 to 25.09.2011 was regularized however said period was treated as not on duty. Further, in the Review Application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 on 08.07.2015 it was categorically pointed out that in respect of co-accused, the suspension period was regularized treating his period of suspension as on duty for all purposes vide Proc.No.K.II(8) 35277/88(1), dated 04.09.2006, issued by The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad. But, the counter is silent in this regard. 8) In this backdrop, this Court deems it apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav’s case (referred supra) wherein it is held as under: “12. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co- delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offense and stringent punishment for lesser offences. 13. The principle stated above is seen applied in few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is Director General of Police and others v. G.Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407 , wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India . In ShaileshkumarHarshadbhai Shah Case, the workman was dismissed from service proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit.” 9) Having regard to the fact that the Review Application filed by the petitioner is already pending before respondent No.1 for consideration since the year 2015, this Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the same within a fixed time frame. 10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to consider the Review Application filed by the petitioner on 08.07.2015 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav’s case (referred supra) and duly considering the submission of the petitioner that case of the co-accused viz., K.Narayana Reddy was considered treating his period of suspension as on duty for all purposes vide proceedings of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad, in Proc.No.K.II(8) 35277/88(1), dated 04.09.2006, and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to impugned Memo dated 03.09.2014, and strictly in accordance with law and duly affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.