- (1.) HEARD both the sides.
(2.) THIS writ has been filed for a number of reliefs for which cause of action arose during different periods right from the year 1981 to 1995 and in respect of different cadre of posts which the petitioner occupied time to time have been clubbed. Thus, it appears that the case is stale, but since the petitioner had been able to show that right from the very beginning he had been making representation after representation for redressal of his grievances and even after his retirement and those were not disposed of also he has filed the writ. As the petitioner was always pursuing the matter, the matter cannot be said to be stale, though the whole matter has become complex. To cut short the matter the petitioner claims his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 2.1.1978 instead of 25.2.1981 and in the scale of Superintending Engineer with effect from .17.1.1989 instead of 19.10.1989. These are the two basic reliefs out of the four reliefs claimed in the instant writ application.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit it has been admitted by the respondents in paragraph 9 that the regular promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was accorded to the petitioner w.e.f. 10.5.1978 vide Notification No. 6465, dated 19.10.1985 in the pay scale of Executive Engineer and the petitioner was drawing the salary of Executive Engineer with effect from the date of ad hoc promotion i.e. 25.2.1981, prior to this date he was in the current charge of Executive Engineer. Though his, regular promotion was accorded with retrospective effect from 10.5.1978, but for the intervening period from 10.5.1978 to 24.2.1981 the financial benefit against the promoted post is notionally admissible to the petitioner as per the provisions and conditions laid down in the Finance Department Circular No. 2074, dated 4.4.1985. Thus, from this admission on the part of the respondents, it is clear that though the petitioner claims the benefit of promoted post of Executive Engineer with effect from 2.1.1978, but the respondents are giving this benefit to him with effect from 10.5.1978. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this, but now he says that petitioner should be given the financial benefit. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstance it is held that on admission the petitioner shall be treated to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e. f. 10.5.1978 and the financial benefit for the period from 10.5.1978 to 24.2.1981 shall also be given to him.;