An employee who is granted retrospective promotion is entitled to all benefits flowing from that promotion, including pay, promotion, and selection grade.

U. P. Singh, J.

1. This is an application for Contempt of Court alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 25-2-1985 passed in C. W. J. C. No.169 of 1978 (R ).

2. In view of the judgment of this Court dated 25-2-1985, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 and the cousequent gradation lists of technicians Grade 1 (Annexures-B, C and D) was quashed, whereby respondents 3 to 35 in the said writ petition were placed as senior to the petitioner. Since there was no firm policy and guide line to determine the inter se seniority it was directed by this Court in the said judgment that the unrest amongst the workmen and stagnation in the matter of fixation of seniority should now be put at rest by adopting a firm policy by the Bihar State Electricity Board (in short the Board)ana the question of seniority of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 35 was directed to be determined expeditiously in accordance with such firm policy so that several workmen affected by the said impugned order might not retire without securing the benefits of such promotion.

3. The affidavit by the Additional Secretary of the Board was filed in pursuance of the notice issued in the contempt matter. In the said affidavit dated 25-6-1986, it was stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in C. W. J. C. No.169 of 1978 (R) on 25-2-1986, revised tentative gradation list of Technician Grade I (Patratu Thermal Power Station) was notified by the general Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station on 17-5-1986. In accordance with the same, the seniority of petitioner Man Mohan Prasad has been restored and that he will get the usual benefits in the matter of fixation of pay, promotion to Selection Grade and next higher post as a result of final publication of this revised tentative gradation list according to the rules of the Board. The submission made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board has been controverted in its reply filed by the petitioner. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the said statement made in paragraphs 4 and 5 are not wholly correct and that only a tentative gradation list dated 17-5-1986 of the General manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station was published and notional seniority was given with effect from 8-10-1970, whereas, the respondents ought to have been allowed all the benefits of seniority like Selection Grade, promotion and monitory benefits in the same manner was given to respondents 3 to 35. On this ground, it was asserted that the judgment of this Court was not fully implemented. On 17-9-1986, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that consequent upon the publication of final gradation list, notional seniority of the petitioner and such other employees of the Board will be fixed and all benefits such as promotion, selection grade and fixation of pay etc. , as admissible by the Board will be made. Continuing further, another supplemetary affidavit filed on behalf of the Board is dated 27-10-1986. In paragraph 5 of the said supplementary affidavit, it was stated that the pay of the other persons including that of the petitioner would be fixed in the higher scale accordingly, but they will not be entitled to arrears of pay since they have not worked as Technicians Grade I. la reply to all these averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, the petitioner has filed its reply on 10-11-1986 and in paragraph-4, it is stated that :-

"a perusal of the aforesaid gradation list marked as Annexure-A, would show that only notional seniority with effect from 8-10-1970 has been given to the writ petitioners and in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit under reply, they have stated that the writ petitioners would be fixed in the higher scale of pay with effect from 8-JO-1970, but they would not be entitled to arrears of pay. "

4. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that notional promotion without any be