validity of General Court Martial proceedings. While annulling the findings and effect of such General Court Martial proceedings, the idea was to confer those benefits which the officer stood denied directly as a result of pendency of such proceedings. Such benefits would therefore be those which are easily quantifiable, namely, those in the nature of loss of salary, emoluments and other benefits. But the expression cannot be construed to mean that even promotions which are strictly on the basis of comparative merit and selection must also stand conferred upon the officer. It is true that as a result of pendency of the General Court Martial proceedings the respondent was kept out of service for nearly nine years and as such his profile would show inadequacy to a certain extent. On the other hand, the Department was also denied of proper assessment of the profile of the respondent for those years. The correct approach in the matter is the one which was considered by this Court in K.D. Gupta v. Union of India [K.D. Gupta v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (I) SCC 416 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 448] as under: (SCC pp 420-21, para 8)
