JUDGMENT :

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J.

1. The present regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court dated 27.01.2001, as well as the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 10.09.1997 whereby, the suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff was appointed on the post of Constable in the Police Department on 28.08.1953. He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) w.e.f. 01.06.1973 and thereafter, promoted on ad hoc basis on the post of Sub Inspector (SI) w.e.f. 24.11.1975.

3. The appellant-plaintiff was thereafter, sent for the upper school training course w.e.f. 01.10.1980. Upon successful completion of the said course, the appellant-plaintiff was promoted on regular basis on the post of Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 13.06.1981. The appellant-plaintiff was further promoted to the post of Inspector on ad hoc basis vide letter dated 01.05.1984. Thereafter, he was granted regular promotion on the post of Inspector w.e.f. 06.01,1988,

4. In the seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, the appellant- plaintiffs name was shown at Serial No.11, whereas his name in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors was shown at Serial No.23 and as per the appellant-plaintiff, some persons who were lower in the seniority list were confirmed before him.

5. The appellant-plaintiff retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.1992 from the post of Inspector in the Police Department.

6. Aggrieved against the order dated 01.10.1980, whereby the appellant-plaintiff was sent for the upper school training course, which he contends amounted to reversion, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, to an extent that the order dated 01.10.1980 whereby he was reverted from the post of SI to the post of ASI was illegal, null and void and was entitled to all benefits and emoluments as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 24.11.1975 and Inspector w.e.f. 01.05.1984 in terms of the promotion list dated 01.06.1973 alongwith arrears and interest @ 18% per annum.

7. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the above said order was in violation of the promotion list of ASI issued on 01.06.1973. It was further pleaded that the order dated 01.10.1980 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant-plaintiff. It was also pleaded that as the appellant-plaintiff was granted promotion to the post of Sub Inspector w.e.f. 24.11.1975 and on the post of Inspector w.e.f. 01.05.1984, as such his seniority should be accordingly re-fixed in the seniority list of Sub-Inspector and Inspector.

8. It was also pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff that as he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 24.11.1975, he could not have been sent for the upper school training course vide order dated 01.10.1980. It was also pleaded that the pensionary benefits payable to him be calculated based on the average emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service, as per the applicable rules.

9. The respondent-defendant duly filed written statement in the above said suit. It was the case of the respondent-defendant that whenever a person is deputed from parent department i.e. Police Department to the CBI, such employee is granted the benefit of ad hoc promotion of one rank. On the basis of the said benefit of one rank, ad hoc promotions were granted to appellant-plaintiff to the post of Sub-Inspector and thereafter, to the post of Inspector.

10. It was further the case of the respondent-department that as and when a vacancy arises in the parent department, regular promotion is granted to the employee in accordance with his seniority. It was further pleaded that when the turn of the appellant-plaintiff came for promotion to the post of Sub- Inspector, he was accordingly, sent to the upper school training course. Thereafter, he was granted regular promotion to t