- (1.) REQUISITE steps in relation to the respondent Nos.4 and 6, who are said to have retired; and the respondent Nos.5 and 7, who are said to have expired, have not been taken.
(2.) HAVING regard to the circumstances of the case, while dispensing with the requirements of taking steps in relation to the said respondents, who are essentially the proforma parties in this matter, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. The short point involved in this matter arises in the circumstances that the writ-petitioner Moti Lal Mahendra, who expired during the pendency of the petition, was appointed as Sub-Nakedar in the appellant Municipal Council. On 21.7.1988, the private respondents, allegedly junior to him, were promoted to the post of Nakedar. It appears that at the relevant time, services of the writ-petitioner stood terminated. He challenged such termination in a writ petition bearing No.111/1976 that came to be allowed by this Court on 19.1.1984; and he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back-wages. Then, the intra-court appeal filed by the present appellant was also dismissed on 27.3.1987. Implication of the orders in favour of the writ-petitioner was that he was to be treated in continuous service with all consequential benefits, though the back wages were reduced to 50% by the Division Bench. The writ-petitioner was reinstated but was sought to be denied promotion to the post of Nakedar with effect from the date his juniors were promoted only on the ground that at the relevant point of time, he was not in service. The grievance of the writ-petitioner against denial of promotion was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition (No.5674/1994) leading to this appeal. The learned Single Judge disagreed with the proposition as suggested by the present appellant and observed that once the writ-petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back-wages by the Court, there was no impediment in according him promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and issued directions to the appellant to the effect that the writ-petitioner would be accorded promotion as Nakedar with effect from 21.7.1988, the date when his juniors were promoted. The learned Single Judge further ordered that the legal representatives of the writ-petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits which would ensue to them; and the arrears of monetary benefits shall be paid to them within a period of three months failing which, the appellant would pay interest @ 12% per annum, to be borne by the person responsible for implementation of the directions. It is submitted that the promotions were initially granted in the year 1977 and the writ-petitioner did not raise any grievance against such promotions at the relevant point of time. It is also submitted that the private respondents were granted promotions to the post of Nakedar only during the period when the writ-petitioner was not in service; and hence, the writ-petitioner was not entitled to make a claim with reference to such promotions.
(3.) THE submissions aforesaid do not make out a case for interference in the just and proper order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Once it is clear that the order terminating service of the writ- petitioner was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service, the fact that he was not in service at the point of time when promotions were accorded to the private respondents, looses its relevance. No other reason has been pointed out for which, the writ petitioner could be considered ineligible for such promotion. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the respondents to accord promotion to the writ- petitioner with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The learned counsel for the appellant has frankly stated in response to the queries of the Court that the requisite payment under the order in question has already been made to the heirs of the writ- petitioner. ;