JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayer in the instant Original Petition filed by the State of Kerala and the Departmental Officers concerned, is as follows:

“................. to set aside the Exhibit P3 order dated 04.03.2021 in O.A (EKM) No.2150/2018 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench Ernakulam), pending disposal of the above Original Petition (KAT).”

2. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the OA and Sri. K.Sandesh Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the OP/ sole applicant in the OA.

3. The respondent herein has filed the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, OA (EKM) No.2150 of 2018, before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the following prayers:

“1) To declare that the applicant is entitled to get ratio promotion to the post of Sub Registrar.

2) To direct the respondents to give notional promotion to the applicant from the date of arousal of the vacancy.

3) To direct the respondent to release the resultant pensionary benefits to the applicant.

4) To grant such other reliefs are deemed just and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 05.03.2021, whereby the above original application has been finally disposed of with the finding that the benefit of the promotion recommended by the DPC as per Annexure-A1 select list dated 06.07.2015 for the select list year 2015, should be given to the original applicant at least on notional basis and that the process of denial of the said promotion to the original applicant solely on the ground that he had retired from service on 31.05.2015, before the publication of Annexure-A1 select list on 06.07.2015, is not reasonable and proper and that notional promotion on that basis should be given to the original applicant, etc, and that his last pay may be notionally fixed and the revised pensionary benefits should be disbursed without any further delay, at any rate, within 3 months, etc. It is this verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P3, that is under challenge in the present Original Petition.

5. The original applicant was holding the post of Junior Superintendent in the Registration Department and going by seniority and qualifications, he was fully eligible to be considered for regular promotion to the next higher category post of 'Sub Registrar' for the select list year 2015, in respect of the vacancies which have occurred for the period from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015. It is the case of the original applicant that he had repeatedly made pleas before the competent authority among the respondents to consider him for the above said promotion and that neither temporary promotion nor regular promotion as Sub Registrar was offered to him and he had retired from service on 31.05.2015, while holding the post of Junior Superintendent. It is thereafter, that the DPC, for promotion to the post of Sub Registrar as per the select list year 2015, was convened on 09.06.2015, which is 9 days after the retirement of the applicant and thereafter, Annexure-A1 select list was published in the Gazette on 06.07.2015 in which it has been found that the applicant is eligible for promotion as Sub Registrar for the select list year 2015 to the vacancy which has occurred from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 and that the applicant has been duly included in Annexure-A1 as serial No.25 thereof. It appears that the applicant thereafter had submitted representations, claiming that the actual denial of promotion to him as Sub Registrar, merely on the ground that he had retired from service on 31.05.2015 even though he has been duly included in Annexure-A1 select list as serial No.25 thereof, is illegal and unreasonable and that he should be given the benefit of the said promotion, etc.

6. Thereupon, the Head of the Department, the Inspector General of Registration, R3 in the OA/3rd petitioner herein, had sub