(1.) Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.
(2.) The claim in the present writ application is for grant of seniority as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from 1.5.1965 in place of 3.7.1970 as granted by the respondents. Consequently the petitioner would claim seniority on the basis of the officiating promotion given to him as a Sub Inspector on 21.6.1971 while the respondents would grant the benefit to him from 3.7.1975. In pursuance of such decision by the respondents the petitioner has been granted seniority as Inspector from 4.5.1990.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 6548/93 on 18.8.1993 the respondents through the Director General of Police Board by a decision dated 25.2.994 at Annexure 4, held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation on the post of Sub Inspector from the date of the officiating promotion and his seniority was to be fixed accordingly. In a contempt application preferred by the petitioner, MJC 1768/93, the respondents reiterated the stand. Therefore the impugned order dated 11.7.1995 at Annexure 7 granting him seniority in the rank of Sub Inspector from 3.7.1975 in place of 21.6.1971 being the date of officiating promotion, was contrary to law as also their own decision.