Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent appearing in person and perused the material available on record.

2. The case at hand is yet another classic example of stubborn and obdurate government officials failing to perform the duty enjoined upon them by law and resultantly embroiling unwilling citizens into unwarranted litigation, adding to ever increasing number of cases pending in the Courts.

3. Succinctly stated facts in brief are that the respondent No.1 Dr. Surendra Mertia was appointed as C.A.S. (Medical Officer) in the Medical & Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 31.12.1982. Two disciplinary inquiries came to be instituted against him. Inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was initiated against him vide order dated 30.6.1994. The said inquiry culminated with passing of an order dated 5.5.1997 whereby, the respondent was visited with punishment of withholding of 5 grade increments with cumulative effect and the absence period was treated as break in service. The second inquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules culminated into a penalty of censure being imposed upon the respondent vide order dated 11.7.2000.

4. Case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Junior Specialist (General Surgery) against the vacancies of the year 1995-96 was considered by the D.P.C. convened for this purpose in the year 1997. However, on account of the ongoing departmental inquiries, he was not afforded promotion and his name was kept in a sealed cover. However, long after the inquiries had culminated and the rider operating against the respondent for being promoted owing to the penalty orders was lifted, the authorities did not take any action in this direction. The respondent, being aggrieved of the indefinite unjustified ignorance of his claim for promotion, filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) bearing Appeal No.299/2011. Notice of the appeal was issued to the State which filed a reply and contested the appeal. The Tribunal decided the appeal vide order dated 31.1.2013 and directed the State to convene a review D.P.C. for the year 1995-96 as well as for the subsequent years and to consider the case of the respondent for promotion and upon being found suitable, to promote him. The Tribunal also directed that the respondent shall be entitled to consequential benefits. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed upon the State of Rajasthan.

5. The order was neither challenged nor complied with upon which, the respondent was compelled to file a contempt petition in the Tribunal. Soon thereafter, the authorities took up the promotional exercise and vide order dated 1.10.2013, the respondent was promoted to the post of Junior Specialist (General Surgery) against the vacancies of the year 2001-02. However, the direction given by the Tribunal for extending consequential benefits to the respondent was not complied with. Upon this, the respondent continued to pursue the contempt petition before the Tribunal. The petitioners filed a reply to the contempt petition contesting that an ex-post facto promotion does not entitle the employee for consequential benefits and only notional benefits can be extended in such a situation. The contempt petition, however, came to be decided vide order dated 15.5.2015 and the State was directed to grant actual benefits of the promotional post to the respondent from the year 2001-02 till 31.12.2008. The State of Rajasthan has now approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition being aggrieved of the orders dated 31.1.2013 and 15.5.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel Shri Sajjan Singh associate to AAG Dr. P.S. Bhati representing the petitioners relied upon Rule 11A of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1963’) and vehemently contended that as per the said provision, an employee promoted retrospectively is not ent