R.S. Verma, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The case has a chequred history. The petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk on 1.4.50 and was working in the Public Works Department. A seniority list dated 29.10.56 was issued to which his name was shown at Serial No. 135. Non-petitioners Chogalal Jain and Shri Dev Mitra were shown below him in the list. The seniority of the petitioner as LDC was maintained in the Gradation List dated 26.9.62 is had under the provisions of State Reorganisation Act, 1956. The petitioner went on deputation in the Education Department and served the said department from 19.1.56 to 18.6.64 but he was repatrinted in June, 1964 to his parent department and was taken back as substantive LDC while his two juniors namely said Shri Chogalal Jain and Shri Dev Mitra had been promoted on higher grade of a UDC with effect from 1.3.56. The petitioner made representations and was eventually promoted as substantive UDC with effect from 29.1.65 and his seniority was place at 31-A in the seniority list of UDCs. The petitioner was not promoted as Office Assistant or Stock Verifier or Office Superintendent whereupon he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1696 of 1976 - Ghansayamlal v. State and Ors. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 22.2.78 by Hon'ble Shri D.P. Gupta as he then was and the petitioner was asked to inform the Court as to what relief he would be entitled to on the aforesaid basis namely that he may be deemed to have been confirmed as UDC with effect from 1956 and fixed in the pay scale of Upper Division Clerk. The matter was eventually decided by Hon'ble Shri CM. Lodha, as he was then on 30.3.82. This order was modified by another order dated 25.8.82 and the result was that respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Assistant with effect from the dates persons junior to the petitioner were prompted Consequently, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered and the petitioner was ordered to be promoted as Office Assistant with effect from 17.9.68 vide order Annexure 6 dated 26.8.87. His pay was also directed to be fixed under Rule 26-A of the RSR.
3. It appears that after this order had been made, the petitioner moved the authorities for considering his case for promotion to the post of Stock Verifier with effect from 18.1.72 and to the post of Office Assistant with effect from 3.5.73. The Chief Engineer PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur found substance in this contention of the petitioner and vide letter dated 9.12.87, he requested the Deputy Secretary to the Government PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur to convey Government order for creation of superannumary posts of Stock Verifier and Officer Superintendent with effect from 18.1.72 and 3.5.75 respectively. As is usual, the matter lingered on with the State Government. The latest communication was made by Additional Chief Engineer PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 11.4.90 vide Annexure 9. It appears that the high-ups sitting in the Government secretariat did not pay any need to this request. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner had already retired in the meanwhile. Now by this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to sanction supernumerary posts of Stock Verifier and Office Superintendent with effect from 18.1.73 and 3.5.73 respectively for giving promotion to the petitioner on the said post with effect from the aforesaid dates when his juniors were so promoted; the arrears of salary be also paid to the petitioner with the interest. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to refix the pay of the petitioner in consequence of such prayers.
4. This writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents on the principal ground that in the earlier writ petition No. 1696 of 1976, decided by Hon'ble G.M. Lodha, J. on 30.3.82, no relief was granted in favour of the petitioner for his consequential promotions.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The State is expected to act as a model employer, it is not expected to take shelter behind mere technicalities. It has to be just to its employees who have served under it for long periods and have spent the best years of their arises in service of the Government. This is true that in the earlier writ petition, no direction was made for grant of consequential benefits, to be made available to the petitioner, but there is a reason for the same which the discernible from the order passed by Hon'ble G.M. Lodha, J. on 30.3.82 and referred to above. He inter-alia, observed:
Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to under what rules the office Assistant in promoted and whether It is done purely on the basis of seniority cum merit, It Is not possible to give specific direction of promoting the petitioner from any particular date; However, It is ordered that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Office Assistant should be considered by the State Government on the dates the juniors of the petitioners were promoted.
6. This shows that the Hon'ble learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the orders for promotion of the petitioner could be not be parsed by the Court itself and hence the matter was left to the respondents to decide this question. When orders for promotions could not have been passed by the Court, no orders could have been given for grant of consequential benefits flowing from the order of promotion. Such consequential benefits could have followed as a natural course only when the petitioner was found fit for promotion by the authorities. As already stated, the petitioner was found so fit for promotion by order Annexure 6. Actually, while passing order Annexure 6, the respondents themselves should have granted the consequential benefits to the petitioner and in not doing so they did serious injustice to the petitioner.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had agreed to forego his arrears of salary on the higher posts as would be evident from letter Annexure 9. He reiterates the position that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is nationally promoted on the post of Stock Verifier and Office Superintendent with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and his pension is refixed on the basis of higher pay so nationally fixed. I find that the prayer is most just and proper. Since the petitioner did not actually discharge the duties of Stock Verifier and Office Superintendent, no question of amount of arrears of salary would arise on that score. However, he is entitled to be notionally promoted on the said posts and his pension case should be considered afresh on the basis of higher pay which would be admissible on the posts on basis of notional promotion made on the said posts with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. The respondents are granted four months time to take necessary action and issue revised pension orders to the petitioner, failing which respondents shall have to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the petitioner on the arrears of pension.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.