IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the principle that a petitioner is entitled to the benefits of a promotion as per previous orders and should not be deprived of such benefits, especially after retirement.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“1. Hold that the impugned order dated 18-08-2010 (Annexure P/1) cancelling the representation dated 24.07.2010 is bad in law.

2. Issue an appropriate writ and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 18-08-2010 (Annexure P/1).

3. Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits by virtue of revival of the order dated 14.01.2002 (Annexure P/6 ).

4. Grant any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as peon with the respondent Board. While working as Nakedar he was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector Grade-II, subject to approval of the Director of Mandi. However, by the time the Director declined to approve the said promotion, whereas the petitioner had already worked for more than two years on such post, i.e. from 01.11.1975 to 23.12.1977. The petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the Director of Mandi to approve his promotion for want of rules filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal, the said petition was transferred and registered as Transfer Application No.1372/1988. The said Transfer Application was finally decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.1993 holding that his case would be considered by the respondents for promotion to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II and in case the petitioner is found fit, he would be entitled to be placed over and above his juniors in the gradation list. The petitioner submits that despite there being a very clear order in addition to his repeated representations, he was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II vide order dated 11.12.1996 and not prior to that. Moreover, the petitioner was promoted to the said post very arbitrarily w. e. f. 27.07.1993 only, i.e. the date of order of the learned Tribunal, whereas there was a clear direction in the Tribunal's order that in addition to granting all consequential benefits, in case of being found fit the petitioner would be entitled for seniority over and above his juniors. The petitioner being aggrieved of the above, preferred many representations for being given promotion w.e.f. 10.10.1980, i.e. from when his juniors have been promoted and therefore, vide order dated 14.01.2002 he was given promotion to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II w. e. f 10.10.1980 and was accordingly placed in the gradation list. The petitioner was further placed and treated as on the promoted post of Secretary, Mandi Board and continued to work there till his retirement w. e. f. 31.05.2004. The petitioner subsequent to his retirement in place of receiving his retrial benefits was highly shocked to receive the order dated 28.06.2005 by which the respondents cancelled the order dated 14.01.2002 awarding promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 10.10.1980. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P. No.3461/2005. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2010, by which the order dated 28.06.2005 was quashed and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of six weeks. In light of the said observation, the petitioner made a fresh representation dated 24.07.2010, but the same has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1). Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law. The respondents ought to have appreciated that after being promoted to the post of Secretary Grade-IV w. e. f. 10.10.1980 vide order dated 14.01.2002, the petitioner could not have been reverted to the lower post without giving