WP(C) 5806/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. MERUNO Madan B Lokur, CJ 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27th October, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. No.221 of 2004 ( Mukun da Narayan Choudhury - Vs - Union of India & Ors.). 2. At the very outset, we may note that the learned Standing Counsel for th e Railways took notice on their behalf when the matter was taken up on 23rd Nove mber, 2007 but in spite of that, none appears on behalf of the respondents to-da y. 3. The petitioner was working as a Cashier in different places under the No rth Eastern Frontier Railway. He was placed under suspension on 22nd August, 19 81 pending a disciplinary inquiry. A criminal case under Section 409 IPC was al so filed against him. In so far as the criminal case is concerned, the petitione r was acquitted of all the charges by an order dated 24th April, 1990. 4. The departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner was re-started . The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 28.2.1994 holding that the charges w ere not proved. Thereafter the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 12th September, 1994. 5. Surprisingly, in spite of the acquittal of the petitioner from the crimi nal charges as well as the favourable enquiry report, by an order of the same da te, i.e. 12.9.1994, the petitioner was given a major penalty of reversion to the post of Jr. Cashier. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing a departme ntal appeal, but it was rejected by an order dated 19.1.1996. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal though after a considerable delay. However, the petitioner moved an app lication for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the Tribunal and the Ori ginal Application was taken on record and disposed of by the judgment and order dated 27th October, 2006. The original application of the petitioner was dispos ed of in his favour with a direction to the appellate authority to reconsider th e petitioner’s case regarding his service benefits from 1981 to 1995. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal ordered reconsidera tion of his case limited only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was mad e clear in the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner would not be entitled t o back wages nor any other benefits except pensionary benefits. 8. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he was due for promotion when he was placed under suspension, but this promotion was wrongly denied to h im - to make matters worse, he was reverted from his post to Jr. Cashier. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is entitled to promotion and financial benefits, other than back wages, for the pe riod he was placed under suspension, i.e. for the period from 1981 onwards, virt ually till his retirement from service. 10. As we have mentioned, there is no appearance or opposition on the part o f the respondents. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that there is no justif ication for denying to the petitioner his notional promotion and consequential f inancial benefits which will impact his pensionary benefits. By denying promotio nal benefits to the petitioner, he has been unnecessarily jeopardized in so far as his financial benefits are concerned. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the writ petition a nd direct the appellate authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner and c onsider granting him necessary relief with regard to his promotion and consequen tial financial benefits from 1981 to 1995 other than back wages so that the peti tioner can enjoy the pensionery benefits on that basis. 12. The appellate authority will take a decision within a period of 3 (thre e) months from to-day and in any case on or before the 31st December, 2010. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.