V. GIREESAN Vs. C. MURALEEDHARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant and the first Respondent were applicants to the post of Rehabilitation Technician Grade -II under the Health Department. Having successful in their qualifying test, they were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment in various Hospitals. Though the first Respondent was senior as per the Advice Memo dated 12.1.1994, he could not join duty before the first Respondent joining duty as he was not relieved from another Department in which he was working at the time of Advice. The Appellant joined duty on 4.3.1994. The first Respondent could join duty on 10.7.1994. In the seniority list, Appellant got position above the first Respondent. There was seniority dispute in between the Appellant and the first Respondent. It is now submitted from the Bar that the seniority which is decided in favour of the first Respondent is now not in dispute. According to learned Counsel for the Appellant, in pursuance to the resettlement of the seniority as per Annexure -A5, the Appellant has to surrender the benefits of the time bound promotion. Learned Counsel would assail only the last paragraph of Annexure -A5 order which reads as "The pay of the incumbents shall be revised and refixed on the date of promotion as per rules prevailing."

(2.) HAVING heard either side we find that since the Petitioner and the Respondent were granted only time bound grade promotion irrespective of the settlement of seniority, the question of recovery would not arise as the Appellant is entitled to have the time bound promotion with effect from the date of joining duty. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the Appellant is entitled to time bound promotion with effect from the date of joining duty. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the appeals with a clarification that there does not arise any question of recovery of the time bound promotion benefits already given. It would no way affect the seniority of the first Respondent and the benefit that he is entitled to. We further make it clear that if there is any ratio promotion wrongly granted to the Appellant in preference to first Respondent, he would be reverted back and the emoluments would be determined as per rules. But the payments already made before the filing of the Writ Petition should not be recovered.