A government servant is entitled to pecuniary benefits if promotion is delayed for no fault of his own, and the imposition of conditions limiting the benefits is unauthorized and illegal.

Paripoornan, J.

The petitioner in O.P. No. 9800 of 1989 is the appellant herein. The respondents herein are the respondents in the original petition - State of Kerala and the Director of Scheduled Caste's Development Department. The petitioner entered service as Lower Division Clerk in the Harijan Welfare Department on 23-9-1957. He retired from service on superannuation in 1984. His main complaint is that his legitimate

promotion was withheld and was not given. For no fault of the petitioner, he was not actually promoted on the due dates and was prevented from working in a post which he was entitled. In other words, the petitioner was unreasonably by illegally denied the legitimate promotions and was prevented from working in higher posts.

2. The original petition was filed to quash Exts. P5 and P6(a) - proceedings of the Government dated 24-6-1987 and proceedings of the Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department dated 22-6-1988. There was also a prayer for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits - including monetary benefits - consequent on his notional promotion such as arrears of pay and allowances, refixation of pay, etc. The petitioner also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioner the full benefits consequent on his notional promotion such as arrears of pay and allowances, refixation of pay, etc.

3. The litigation initiated by the petitioner had a cheque red career. The short facts arc the following: The appellant-petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Harijan Welfare Department through Public Service Commission on 23-9-1957. He is a graduate. According to the rules in force then, graduates had preference for the post of Upper Division Clerk in the ratio of 3:1 between graduates and non-graduates. This was the rule in force till 31-10-1957. The appellant-petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 25-7-1958. According to him, he should have been promoted as Upper Division Clerk even earlier, on 10-10-1957. The seniority list of Upper Division Clerks in the Harijan Welfare Department was published in December 1972. Then only, the appellant-petitioner knew that he was entitled to promotion even earlier than 25-7-1958- on which day he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk. The appellant and others filed O.P. No. 1673 of 1972 before this Court. That original petition was disposed of on condition that the Government will prepare and publish a fresh gradation list applying the ratio of 3:1. between graduates and non-graduates imperiously. A fresh list was published. It was not proper. The petitioner and others filed O,P. No. 67 of 1974. In this Court, an undertaking was given that the grievances of the petitioners will be examined by the Government. On 6-12-1976, the Government published a fresh seniority list of the Upper Division Clerks. That was also incorrect. Two aggrieved persons filed O.P. No. 248 of 1977. This Court directed the respondents to consider the seniority afresh. The second respondent passed an order on 12-11-79. Even then, the grievance of the appellant and others remained unrepressed. Against the decision in O.P. No. 248 of 1977, W.A. No. 194 of 1979 was filed. In the meanwhile, the Government issued Ext. P1 granting benefits to the petitioners in O.P. No. 248 of 1977. The benefit was denied to the appellant-petitioner herein stating that he was not a party to O.P. No. 248 of 1977. The appellant filed Ext.P2 representation dated 18-2-1981 and also filed O.P. No. 1239 of 198.1. That original petition was disposed of by this Court oil 8-1-1987 (Ext. P3). This Court held that the Government will consider whether the appellant is eligible for promotion on the basis of the principles evolved in G.O. (Rt) No. 2459/80/ DD Development (C) Department dated 6-9-1980. Since it turned out that the appellant had retired from service by then, this Court also held that the benefits to which the appellant will b