Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) The facts in brief leading to this appeal are that; the petitioner since deceased Shenker Dan was appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer by promotion from the post of Sales Tax Inspector in 1978. After the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion in 1978, the petitioner's case was not considered by the D.P.C. against the vacancies of your 1977-1978 and 1983-1984 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examinations. Aggrieved with the non-consideration, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Ci it Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur alleging that the basic premise that he has not competed departmental examination is erroneous. He averred that he has passed all the 7 papers after appearing in the departmental examination held in 1968, 1981 and 1982 and, therefore, he contended that he should be considered to have been selected against the vacancies in the year 1978 on the post of ACTO.
(2.) After filing of the appeal, as a result of non- consideration by D.P.C. the petitioner was ordered to be reverted and the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal for staying the order of reversion dated 12.12.1983. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14.3.1987 dismissed the appeal by holding that the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on 1.4.1983 and could be considered for vacancies falling thereafter. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal, due to the finding of the Tribunal, the petitioner acquired eligibility for consideration of promotion and was not reverted to the post of Inspector and was allowed to continue as ACTO on ad hoc temporary basis until the date of his retirement dated 30th Jan., 1995.
(3.) The happening that led to the retirement are that on 3rd Jan., 1995, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 23rd. Jan., 1995 by seeking relaxation in the rule for the notice of requisite period. The respondents accepted that voluntary retirement option submitted by the petitioner as ad hoc ACTO by order dated 30th Jan., 1995. It further appears that by another order dated 30th Jan., 1995, the petitioner was sought to be reverted to the post of Inspector in pursuance of order dated 12.12.1983 effecting his retire benefits on his voluntary retirement which option he submitted as ACTO and not as Inspector.;