1. What is the normal rule to be followed when a Government employee is granted the legitimate promotion due to him - not promptly but later with retrospective effect? Is he entitled for all monetary benefits from the date with effect from which he is given such retrospective promotion or is he entitled for such monetary benefits only with effect from the date on which he starts work in the promoted post? What is the rule and which are the exceptions? These are the interesting questions which arise for consideration in these appeals.

2. The petitioner (we shall refer to the parties in the manner in which they are ranked in the Original Petition) joined service on 25.2.1957. While working as First Grade Draftsman his juniors were promoted but the petitioner was not promoted. He filed an application dt. 15.6.1972 calling upon the Government to make available to him the benefits of the promotion to which he is entitled. As there was no prompt and favourable consideration of the said application, he filed O.P. 585 of 1975 and this Court as per judgment dt. 12.8.1977 in O.P. 585 of 1975 directed the Government to consider the representation of the petitioner without reference to any policy decision and on the merits of the representation made by the petitioner.

3. The Government considered the representation and by order dt. 26.12.1978 the Government directed that promotion be granted to the petitioner. By order dt. 4.1.1979 the petitioner was actually promoted. He could join service in the promoted category only on 11.5.1979 on account of various reasons. He retired from service on 31.7.1980. He made application that promotion may be effected and benefits paid with effect from 15.9.1961. By Ext. P1 order he was granted promotion from 15.9.1961. The monetary benefits were not paid. By Ext. P2 the officials computed the actual monetary benefits which would be due consequent on promotion with effect from 15.9.1961. By Ext. P3 a clarification was sought. Ext. P4 representation was in the meantime made by the petitioner. By Ext. P5 clarification it was directed that the petitioner will be entitled for monetary benefits only for the period 11.5.1979 to 31.7.1980 during which period he had actually worked in the promoted post. It was held that he will be entitled only for notional promotion with effect from 15.9.1961 and shall not be entitled for monetary benefits for the period 15.9.1961 to 11.5.1979. Against this Exts. P6 to P8 representations were made by the petitioner. They did not produce any useful result. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court again with O.P. 6502 of 1996.

4. By judgment dt.1st July 1997 the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is not entitled to get any monetary benefits for the period 15.9.1961 to 10.5.1979. However it was directed that pensionary benefits will be paid as if the petitioner had worked as Assistant Engineer from 15.9.1961.

5. Later R.P. 331 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner seeking a review of the order dt.1.7.1997 in O.P. 6502 of 1996. The learned Single Judge by order dt. 3.12.1997 in R.P. 331 of 1997 held that the petitioner will be entitled to his salary for the period 15.6.1972 till 11.5.1979. It was made clear that no interest shall be payable.

6. Against the order in O.P. 6502 of 1996 as modified by the order in R.P. the petitioner has preferred W.A.1560 of 1998. The petitioner asserts that all monetary benefits must be paid w.e.f. 15.9.1961. The State has preferred W.A.1451 of 1998 against the order in R.P. 331 of 1997. The State contends that the review was unjustified. Arguments were heard. As agreed by the counsel both these appeals were heard and are taken up for disposal together.

7. We shall immediately dispose of W.A.1451 of 1998 in which the order in the Review Petition is challenged. Reliance was placed on a decision reported in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, to contend that invocation of the powers of review was u