Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner came to be initially appointed as Chowkidar by the District Board, Ajmer vide order dated 10.12.1956. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Cess Clerk vide order dated 14.4.1958. In the year 1959 after winding up of the District Board, Ajmer, the Administrator appointed the entire staff on temporary basis and the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 16.9.1959. After the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act came into force with effect from 2.10.1959, the staff of various District Boards was absorbed in Zila Parishads. The petitioner vide order dated 29.10.1966 was temporarily promoted as Upper Division Clerk in persuance to the recommendation of District Employees Committee and vide order dated 2.9.1969 the promotion of petitioner was confirmed.
(2.) ON attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner came to be retired on 31.12.1994. When the retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner, he submitted representation on 20.2.1996. When no relief was granted the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition claiming the retiral benefits alongwith the interest. The respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 filed joint return to the writ petition, whereas the respondent No. 2, Pension Department, has submitted independent reply. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner was made Cess Clerk, LDC and UDC without considering his educational qualification. The petitioner was only middle pass and he could not have been promoted as LDC or UDC. The case of petitioner was sent to Department of Personnel for relexation, but no relexation was granted to him.
(3.) THE petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner averred that he was appointed as Chowkidar and was also required to discharge the duties as Peon in office additionally. The petitioner was promoted on newly created post of Cess Clerk. Thereafter the petitioner was given promotion to the post of LDC and UDC. Now after about 40 years the respondents are estopped from pleading that the promotion given to petitioner was illegal. The promotion was given to petitioner after considering his candidature, experience as well as length of service.;