1. - The petitioner filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur praying therein that Rule 228 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) be declared illegal insofar as it deprives the benefits of arrears on account of retrospective promotion. In the Original Application, the petitioner also prayed that the order dated 18th January, 1995 be modified and the respondents may be directed to pay the arrear of difference of pay along with reasonable rate of interest and consequently his pension may be revised and other consequential benefits like gratuity, commutation etc. be given. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 23rd March, 2000 dismissed the Original Application. Upset thereby the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts in brief to the extent these are relevant for disposal of the writ petition may be summarised thus :

(a) The petitioner joined the service in Western Railway in the year 1957. He was promoted as Fireman-II and thereafter as Diesel Assistant and then as Shunter.

(b) That in the year 1986, the petitioner was working as Shunter.

(c) That on 20th May, 1986, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the petitioner of an offence under Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.

(d) On 30th May, 1986 due to the registration of criminal case against the petitioner under Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, he was suspended. The suspension order was withdrawn on 25th July, 1987 and he was taken back in service.

(e) That in the year 1987 the departmental examination for the post of Driver was held. He was not promoted due to the criminal case pending against him.

(f) That by the order dated 26th April, 1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case.

(g) However before the order of acquittal came to be passed, in the year 1989 (to be specific on 31.12.1989), the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

(h) That on his retirement, the provisional pension was fixed on the basic pay of Rs. 1410/- that the petitioner was drawing at the time of his retirement.

(i) That after the acquittal of the petitioner by criminal court, vide judgment dated 26th April, 1994, the respondents passed an order on 18th January, 1995 appointing the petitioner notionally on the post of the Driver in the pay scale of 1350-2200 and proforma fixation of the petitioner was done. According to the order dated 18th January, 1995 as on 1st March, 1989, the petitioner's pay on proforma promotion was fixed at Rs. 1530/-. The proforma promotion with effect from 22nd March, 1987 was given on the basis of his junior Kedar Nath Mishra was promoted to the post of Driver.

3. The petitioner's grievance is that having been notionally promoted with effect from 22nd March, 1987 retrospectively on the post of Driver, he is entitled to the arrears of pay on that basis and also entitled to re-fixation of pension as if he was drawing the salary of Rs. 1530/- per month on the date of his retirement.

4. Paragraph 228 of I.E.R.M. reads thus :

"228. Erroneous Promotions.-(l) Sometimes due to administrative errors, staff are over-looked for promotion to higher grades could either be on account of wrong assignment of relative seniority of the eligible staff or full facts not being placed before the competent authority at the time of ordering authority at the time of ordering promotion or some other reasons. Broadly, loss of seniority due to the administrative errors can be of two types :

(i) Where a person has not been promoted at all because of administrative error, and

(ii) Where a person has been promoted but not on the date from which he would have been promoted but for the administrative error.

Each such case should be dealt with on its merits. The staff who have lost promotion on account of administrative error should on promotio