JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction may kindly be issued and the action of the Respondents whereby they have granted the service benefits to the Petitioner from 02.06.2016, only on notional basis, instead of actual benefits, may be declared null and void. 2. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction may kindly be issued directing them to Promote the Petitioner as Principal (School Cadre) w.e.f. 02.06.2016 with all consequential benefits, along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that according to the petitioner, in light of the fact that in the year 2012, as certain posts of Headmasters were lying vacant, process was initiated through H.P. Public Service Commission to fill up the said posts. The petitioner also participated in the process and was offered appointment as Headmaster vide Annexure P-1, dated 25.09.2012. In the course of his serving as such, certain false complaints were filed against him i.e. one vide memo dated 15.07.2015 and the other vide memo dated 12.03.2016. A thorough inquiry was held by the Department in the matter and in terms of Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4, dated 22.06.2018 and 16.05.2017 respectively, the disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner cannot be penalized and the notices of proposed penalty were withdrawn and the petitioner was exonerated. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, DPC was held for conferring promotions qua post of Principal (School Cadre). In the light of the fact that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was duly considered for promotion, but the same was kept in a sealed cover. After the petitioner was exonerated, the sealed cover was opened and in terms of Annexure P-9, dated 08.03.2019, the petitioner has been promoted against the post of Principal, on placement basis with effect from 14.11.2018 and on notional basis with effect from 02.06.2016. This exactly is the grievance of the petitioner. 4. After the petitioner was exonerated, the sealed cover was opened and in terms of Annexure P-9, dated 08.03.2019, the petitioner has been promoted against the post of Principal, on placement basis with effect from 14.11.2018 and on notional basis with effect from 02.06.2016. This exactly is the grievance of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sealed cover procedure, which was adopted in case of the petitioner for considering him for promotion against the post of Principal (School Cadre) was only on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, which culminated into the exoneration of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991) 2 Supreme Court cases 109, the act of the respondents of conferring upon the petitioner the promotion on notional basis is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the petitioner is entitled to be conferred promotion on regular basis from due date with all consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner did not perform the duties of Principal on account of non-conferment of promotion to him during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he cannot claim the actual benefits. Learned Additional Advocate General has also referred to Fundamental Rule 17 (1) and submitted that in terms thereof, an officer can draw the pay and allowances attached to a post only from the date when he effectively assumes the charge thereof and, therefore also, the petitioner cannot claim this relief. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that persons similarly situated as the petitioner, were not conferred promotion on regular basis from the year 2016, but they were called upon to perform the duties on officiating basis also and, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that persons similarly situated as the petitioner, were not conferred promotion on regular basis from the year 2016, but they were called upon to perform the duties on officiating basis also and, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. 6. In counter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Fundamental Rule 17 (1) are not attracted in the present case for the reason that the petitioner was entitled for promotion from the date his name was recommended by the DPC, which kept the matter of the the petitioner in a sealed cover and had there not been departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner, he would have been offered promotion and he would have had joined because there was no impediment in his joining. Learned counsel further drawn the attention of the Court to notification dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure R-1), appended with the reply of the respondents-State and submitted that in terms of this notification, on the recommendations of the DPC, Headmasters therein, which includes the contemporaries of the petitioner, were promoted against the posts of Principal with effect from the date they were entrusted the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre). Accordingly, he submitted that the objection of the State is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully perused the pleadings and also the record of the case. 8. It is not in dispute that on 02.06.2016, when certain Headmasters were called upon to hold the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre), the petitioner was ignored only because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Annexure P-5, which is notification dated 02.06.2016 demonstrates that incumbents who were beyond Sr.No. 2058, in the seniority of the Headmasters, were also given the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre). It is not in dispute that the seniority number of the petitioner in the overall seniority of Headmasters was 2058. In notification dated 02.06.2016, Annexure P-5, Ms. Dipti Rana, whose name is reflected at Sr.No. 75, is having seniority No. 2057 and the Headmaster at Sr.No. 76 Shri Rajesh Kumar, has seniority No. 2059. This means that the incumbent in between them was not given the additional charge and this incumbent happens to be the petitioner. In notification dated 02.06.2016, Annexure P-5, Ms. Dipti Rana, whose name is reflected at Sr.No. 75, is having seniority No. 2057 and the Headmaster at Sr.No. 76 Shri Rajesh Kumar, has seniority No. 2059. This means that the incumbent in between them was not given the additional charge and this incumbent happens to be the petitioner. This is evident from Annexure P-9, where the seniority number of the petitioner is reflected, which is 2058. Now, in terms of Annexure P-9, after the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceedings, on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, he has been granted promotion as a Principal on placement basis with effect from 14.11.2018, as was done in the case of other incumbents, as per Annexure R-1 and has been given benefit on notional basis with effect from 02.06.2016. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was denied the right to hold the charge of the post of Principal (School Cadre), only on account of the pendency of departmental proceedings and as he was subsequently exonerated in the departmental proceedings, therefore, he is entitled for full benefit of the post of Principal (School Cadre) as have been given to his contemporaries and persons junior to him. He cannot be discriminated in this regard. As far as the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that because the petitioner did not perform the duty, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief prayed for or Fundamental Rule 17 (1) comes in the way of the petitioner, these contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General do not have any merit, as these issues have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others (supra), in which, it has been categorically held that though the normal rule is “no work and no pay”, but on many occasions frivolous proceedings are instituted at the instance of interested persons, sometimes with a specific object of denying the promotion due and the employee concerned is made to suffer both mental agony and privitations, which are multiplied when he is also placed under suspension. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when at the end of such suffering, he comes out clean with a clean deed, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when at the end of such suffering, he comes out clean with a clean deed, he has to be restored to all the benefits from which he was kept away unjustly. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that when an employee is completely exonerated, meaning thereby, that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along-with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the criminal proceedings. 10. Therefore, in the light of the law so declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and in the backdrop of the fact that  the  petitioner  was  not  punished  in  the  departmental proceedings, but was honorably exonerated, the act of the respondents-State of not conferring actual benefits to the petitioner, in terms of notification dated 08.03.2019, as stands conferred to persons junior to him upon their promotion against the post of Principal (School Cadre), is held to be bad in law. This petition is therefore allowed. Notification dated 08.03.2019, is ordered to be read down to the effect that the date of posting of the petitioner as a Principal on placement basis, shall be with effect from 02.06.2016 with all consequential benefits, as stand conferred to the incumbents similarly situated as the petitioner, more so, his juniors. Let needful be done, within three months from today, failing which, respondents shall be liable to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% from the date of the judgment. 11. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.