V K BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the contentions of the appellant about his absorbtion, confirmation and seniority have been accepted but he has been denied consequential benefits, on the ground that he had retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition. The appellant was intitally an employee of the Relief and Rehabilitation Department and on being declared surplus from the post of loans officer he was absorbed in the Excise and Taxation Departments as Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, which post he joined on Jan. 19, 1962. The learned Single Judge has held that it was not necessary to appoint the appellant on probation as he had been appointed on the equivalent post of loans officer on the recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and should have been confirmed as A.C.T.O. with effect from October 26, 1962, when he came to be substantively appointed on this post. On basis of having rendered a longer period of continuous temporary service on an equivalent post he was held to be senior to Gautam Prasad and Nandlal respondent 4 and 5 but not senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to 9. This seniority had already been assigned during the pendency of the writ petition, to the appellant by the order of the State Government dated July 7, 1975. In the end the learned Single Judge observed that since the petitioner had already retired from service no other direction appeared necessary. It is this last part of the judgment which has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that on the basis of the revised seniority of the appellant he would have been promoted to the post of Commercial Taxation Officer prior to respondent Gautam Pal and Nandlal and if this notional promotion is allowed to him he may be able to have some advantage in the pension admissible to him. It is contended that the appellant's retirement during the pendency of the writ petition could not be relevant for refusing consquential relief, once it was held that he was wrongly treated as junior to these two persons. A direction to the State Government, to consider the promotion of the appellant as C.T.O. on and from 1 -1 -1968, the date when his juniors are said to have been promoted, is prayed, along with consequential relief.

(3.) ANOTHER decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is D.D. Mehta v. The Union of India 1981 SLR 414 where in the compulsory retirement of the appellant was challenged. At the time of hearing the appeal/writ he had already superannuated. The order of retirement was held to be illegal and the appellant was held entitled to salary inclusive of other admissible allowances for the period between the date of compulsory retirement and superannuation at the age of 58.