The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person prevented from working by the department illegally can be entitled to all monetary benefits, even if they have not worked in the post.

The prayer in W.P.No.3221 of 2001 is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 2. 2001 and for a direction to maintain the seniority of the petitioner as shown in the revised final panel of Assistant Executive Engineer of the year 1994, issued in his proceedings dated 28. 1999 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the first respondent Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.

2. The prayer in W.P.No.24963 of 2002 is to quash the order dated 16. 2002 of the first respondent and direct the first respondent to revise the panel of Executive Engineers, include the name of the petitioner above the name of the second respondent, restore and maintain the seniority of the petitioner as shown in the revised final panel of Assistant Executive Engineer of the year 1994 dated 28. 1999 issued in proceedings No.H3/123983/94-1 and consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in preference to the second respondent with retrospective effect from 26. 2002, the date on which the second respondent was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with all consequential service benefits, including seniority, pay, promotion and arrears of pay and allowances.

.3. The case of the petitioner is that even though he was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1994, when the panel was prepared for appointment on promotion, his name was not included in spite of his willingness to accept the promotion post. Petitioners juniors, including the second respondent were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers, overlooking his seniority and eligibility. Petitioner filed W.P.No.6350 of 1995 before this Court and challenged his non-promotion and also claimed promotion retrospectively with effect from 11. 1994, the date when his juniors were given promotion with all consequential benefits. This Court by order dated 210. 1998, allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to include the petitioners name in the panel of Assistant Executive Engineer, for the year 1994 and consider his name for promotion with effect from 11. 1994, the date on which the second respondent and one A. Chandrasekaran were promoted, with consequential service benefits from the said date. The first respondent, thereafter passed an order giving promotion retrospectively, without monetary benefits.

4. Since monetary benefits were not given, which is in violation of the order of this Court, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.375 of 1999 and after issuing notice in that application, the first respondent fixed the petitioner’s pay in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 11. 1994 and regulated the pay fixation, however, sanctioned monetary benefit with effect from 11. 1999, the date on which the petitioner actually joined in the post. When the contempt application came up for hearing, a counter affidavit was filed stating that the order passed by this Court was fully complied with and arrears of pay and allowances cannot be sanctioned. This Court, taking note of the earlier order passed, gave a finding that there was no contempt as the direction to consider the claim of the petitioner alone was ordered and liberty was given to the petitioner to agitate the monetary benefits separately. Since the petitioner filed contempt application, a prejudicial stand was taken by the first respondent and reduced the petitioners scale of pay from Rs.9,375/- to Rs.9,100 as on 10. 1999 and also directed to recover the excess amount said to have been paid by the order dated 112. 2000 and the petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.3221 of 2001.

5. In W.P.No.24963 of 2002, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16. 2002 altering the seniority of the petitioner and placing him below the second respondent and also the promotion given to the second respondent as Executive Engineer, pursuant to the said revised seniority