Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Chandra Mathur vs The Raj.Housing Board,Jaipur And Ors on 19 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:54368]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5463/2017
Dinesh Chandra Mathur S/o Shri Vijay Raj Mathur, Resident Of
High Court Colony, Sector B, Vijay Kishore Niwas, Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through Its
Chairman.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.
3. Rameshwar Dayal Gupta S/o Shri Mohari Lal, At Present
Resident Engineer And Technical Assistant To Deputy
Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle-
I, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
4. Ramesh Chadra Jain S/o Shri Vimal Chand Jain, At
Present Deputy Housing Commissioner Ad Hoc, Rajasthan
Housing Board, Hiran Magri, Sector-11, Udaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order Date of conclusion of arguments : 15/10/2025 Date on which order is reserved : 15/10/2025 Full order or operative part : Full order Date of pronouncement : 19/12/2025
1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and propriety of certain actions and inaction on the part of the Rajasthan Housing Board in the matter of promotion and seniority to the post of Resident Engineer and seeking enforcement of the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (2 of 19) [CW-5463/2017]
2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-
(i) to quash and set aside the order dated 20.04.2010 (Annex.7), whereby respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Resident Engineer, and the consequential seniority list/circular dated 04.10.2012 (Annex.10);
(ii) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent Board to implement and enforce the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014 in its true letter and spirit;
(iii) to direct the respondent Board to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Resident Engineer and to consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post from the date of promotion of his junior, with all consequential benefits; and
(iv) to direct the respondent Board to prepare and issue a fresh final seniority list for the post of Resident Engineer by placing the petitioner above respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other officers recruited in the year 1989.
3. The petitioner is a degree holder in Civil Engineering and entered the service of the Rajasthan Housing Board on ad-hoc basis on the post of Project Engineer by order dated 01.01.1983 (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (3 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] (Annex.1). Pursuant to the decision taken by the respondent Board in its 124th meeting to introduce a screening mechanism, the petitioner was subjected to screening and, on the recommendations of the Junior Selection Committee, was regularised in service by order dated 19.05.1987 (Annex.2). Thereafter, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 18.11.1987, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) by order dated 21.11.1987 (Annex.3).
4. In the year 1989, the respondent Board undertook direct recruitment to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) and appointed successful candidates, including respondent Nos. 3 and 4, by order dated 27.03.1989 (Annex.4). These appointees entered service subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Project Engineer (Senior). Disputes thereafter arose regarding inter se seniority between promotees of the year 1987 and direct recruits of the year 1989. Certain direct recruits, including respondent Nos. 3 and 4, instituted a writ petition (SBCWP No.1487/1996 - Rameshwar Dayal Gupta & Ors Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.) before this Court seeking placement above the promotees in the seniority list. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.04.1996, whereafter a special appeal (DBSAW No.689/1996 - Ramesh Chandra Jain & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.) came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 25.05.2007. In purported compliance thereof, the (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (4 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] respondent Board cancelled the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) by order dated 18.06.2007 (Annex.5). The said promotion had been given to the petitioner in the year 1987 vide order dated 21.11.1987. Subsequently, the petitioner and the persons alike were re-promoted against vacancies of the year 1995-96 by order dated 07.09.2007 (Annex.6), thereby adversely affecting his seniority inasmuch as his seniority on the post of Project Engineer (Senior) came to be reckoned from the year 1995 instead of 1987.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioner and alike persons approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was allowed and registered as Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent Board convened a Departmental Promotion Committee and, by order dated 20.04.2010, promoted several officers, including respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to the post of Resident Engineer (Annex.7). The petitioner was not considered for promotion on account of the subsisting inter se seniority dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by judgment dated 15.07.2014, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated 25.05.2007 and conclusively held that the promotees of the year 1987 were senior to the direct recruits of the year 1989 (Annex.8). Pursuant thereto, the respondent Board convened a review DPC and restored the petitioner's promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) against vacancies of the year 1987-88 by order dated (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (5 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] 04.03.2015 (Annex.9), thereby restoring his seniority from the original date of promotion.
6. Despite the aforesaid final adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent Board did not undertake any consequential exercise in respect of promotions to the post of Resident Engineer. The promotion order dated 20.04.2010 remained operative, and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 continued to work on the higher post. A seniority list of Resident Engineers dated 04.10.2012 (Annex.10) also remained unaltered. The petitioner submitted several representations (Annex.11) seeking enforcement of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and grant of consequential benefits, which did not yield any result .
7. Thereafter, the respondent Board issued a final seniority list of Project Engineer (Senior) on 08.09.2016, wherein the petitioner was shown senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Annex.12). However, even after issuance of the said seniority list, no steps were taken to review promotions to the post of Resident Engineer. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Contempt Petition No. 653/2017, which came to be dismissed on 27.03.2017 (Annex.13) with liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the competent forum.
8. It is also on record that the petitioner has been discharging duties of the post of Resident Engineer on ad-hoc basis since 31.07.2012 without regular promotion or monetary benefits (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (6 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] (Annex.14). With his retirement imminent and despite final settlement of seniority in his favour, the petitioner continued to be denied consideration for promotion to the post of Resident Engineer, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
9. In response to the writ petition, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a detailed reply raising preliminary objections as well as parawise submissions on merits. At the outset, it has been contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary parties. It is asserted that apart from respondent Nos. 3 and 4, certain other officers, namely Shri K.S. Choudhary, Shri Narendra Bohra and Shri Manmohan Singh, who are stated to be junior to the petitioner in the revised seniority list of Project Engineer (Senior) dated 08.09.2016 (Annex.12) and who are presently working as Resident Engineers with additional charge, have not been impleaded as parties, though the outcome of the writ petition may have a direct bearing upon their service interests.
10. It is further pleaded that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches inasmuch as the promotion order dated 20.04.2010 (Annex.7) was never challenged by the petitioner for nearly seven years. On this ground also, dismissal of the writ petition has been sought. A further objection has been raised that the seniority list dated 04.10.2012 (Annex.10), which is under challenge, no longer subsists in view of issuance of a revised seniority list dated 08.09.2016 (Annex.12) in purported (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (7 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that the said revised seniority list itself is under challenge in a separate writ petition pending before the Jaipur Bench of this Court.
11. On merits, it has been submitted that the petitioner initially entered service on ad-hoc basis as Project Engineer (Junior) on 01.01.1983 and that his services were regularised only with effect from 19.05.1987 (Annex.2). According to the respondent Board, the ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularisation cannot be counted as qualifying service for promotion under the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976. Strong reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.09.2014 in K.K. Dixit v. Rajasthan Housing Board, wherein it was held that ad-hoc service could not be treated as valid experience for the purpose of promotion.
12. It has been contended that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) by order dated 21.11.1987 (Annex.3) was contrary to the Regulations of 1976 and the settled legal position, as the petitioner had not completed three years of regular service as on that date. It is asserted that the said promotion was cancelled by the Board by order dated 18.06.2007 (Annex.5) in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, and that the cancellation order was never independently challenged by the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (8 of 19) [CW-5463/2017]
13. With regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.07.2014 (Annex.8), it has been submitted that the said judgment was rendered primarily on the ground that the promotion order dated 21.11.1987 had not been challenged by the private respondents and that the issue relating to counting of ad- hoc service was neither examined nor decided therein. It has been argued that the judgment in K.K. Dixit's case, rendered subsequently on 05.09.2014, lays down the correct legal position and must govern the field.
14. It has further been contended that the respondent Board has duly implemented the judgment dated 15.07.2014 by restoring the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Project Engineer (Senior) vide order dated 04.03.2015 (Annex.9) and by issuing a revised seniority list dated 08.09.2016 (Annex.12), wherein the petitioner has been placed above respondent Nos. 3 and 4. According to the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not issue any specific direction to cancel promotions already granted to the private respondents on the post of Resident Engineer nor did it direct promotion of the petitioner from any retrospective date.
15. It has also been emphasized that the petitioner has since retired from service on 31.07.2017 and, therefore, is not entitled to any promotion. The respondents have denied violation of Articles 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution and have asserted that no (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (9 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] employee has a vested or fundamental right to promotion contrary to statutory rules.
16. Subsequent to the filing of the reply, the petitioner has placed on record an additional affidavit. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated that the core relief sought in the writ petition is the quashing of the promotion order dated 20.04.2010 (Annex.7) and the seniority list dated 04.10.2012 (Annex.10), coupled with enforcement of the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and grant of consequential promotion to the post of Resident Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted.
17. The petitioner has specifically controverted the stand of the respondent Board that further action was stalled on account of a stay operating against the seniority list dated 08.09.2016 (Annex.12). It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the Jaipur Bench of this Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8391/2015, by order dated 05.08.2021, modified the earlier interim orders and permitted the respondent Board to make further promotions on the basis of the impugned seniority list, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The said order dated 05.08.2021 and the communication dated 09.08.2021 addressed to the respondent Board have been placed on record as Annex.15 and Annex.16, respectively.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (10 of 19) [CW-5463/2017]
18. It has further been averred that despite the aforesaid clarification by the Jaipur Bench, the respondent Board proceeded to promote several officers junior to the petitioner by office orders dated 23.09.2021 (Annex.17), while the petitioner continued to be ignored. According to the petitioner, this subsequent conduct of the respondent Board demonstrates arbitrary discrimination and selective application of interim orders to his detriment.
19. The petitioner has, thus, maintained that the plea of inability to act due to pendency of litigation or interim orders is wholly untenable and that the respondent Board has failed to give full and effective implementation to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.07.2014, particularly insofar as consequential promotional benefits are concerned.
20. The matter has come up before this Court on the second stay application preferred by the petitioner, seeking interim directions substantially identical to the final reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the reliefs sought in the second stay application, if granted, would virtually amount to granting final relief in the writ petition itself. The writ petition pertains to the year 2017 and has remained pending for a considerable length of time. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is presently aged about 68 years and has already superannuated from service on 31.07.2017. Having regard to the prolonged nature of the litigation and the advanced age of the (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (11 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that keeping the writ petition pending any further would result in denial of effective justice.
21. Though learned counsel for the respondents is not present to argue the matter, the record reveals that pleadings are complete, replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents, including a detailed reply as well as submissions touching upon maintainability, delay, seniority, and eligibility, and the factual matrix is largely undisputed. The controversy involved does not appear to be complex or fact-intensive. In these circumstances, and while ensuring that the interests of the respondents are not prejudiced, this Court deems it appropriate to finally decide the writ petition itself, instead of confining the adjudication to the second stay application.
22. The second stay application essentially reiterates the substantive prayers made in the writ petition, namely, quashing of the order dated 20.04.2010 (Annex.7) and the circular dated 04.10.2012 (Annex.10), enforcement of the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014 in its true letter and spirit, convening of a review Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of the petitioner's candidature to the post of Resident Engineer, grant of promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, and consequential revision of seniority. The grievance projected in the second stay application is that despite modification of interim (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (12 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] orders by the Jaipur Bench of this Court on 05.08.2021 permitting promotions subject to final outcome of the writ petition, the respondent Board proceeded to promote several persons junior to the petitioner by office orders dated 23.09.2021, while the petitioner was ignored.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing submissions for final adjudication of the writ petition, contended that the core issue relating to inter se seniority between the petitioner and the private respondents stands concluded by the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014. It was submitted that the said judgment attained finality and is binding on the respondent Board, which was duty-bound to give full and effective implementation to the same, not merely in form but in substance. According to learned counsel, though the respondent Board restored the petitioner's seniority on paper, the consequential benefits flowing therefrom were deliberately withheld.
24. It was urged that once the petitioner stood senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Project Engineer (Senior), his claim for promotion to the post of Resident Engineer was required to be considered from the date his immediate juniors were promoted. The failure of the respondent Board to convene a review DPC for this purpose was asserted to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and in clear breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (13 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] pendency of challenges to the seniority list dated 08.09.2016 (Annex.12) could not be used as a shield to deny the petitioner consideration for promotion, particularly when this Court had already permitted promotions to be made subject to final outcome.
25. Learned counsel further submitted that the reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Dixit's case was wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case. It was argued that the petitioner's case stood on a distinct footing, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his own matter had already adjudicated the issue of seniority, and the respondents could not indirectly reopen or dilute the effect of that judgment under the guise of subsequent decisions or administrative actions.
26. It was also contended that the objection regarding non- joinder of parties was hyper-technical and devoid of substance, particularly when the petitioner was only seeking enforcement of a final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consideration of his own promotional claim. The plea of delay was similarly argued to be untenable, inasmuch as the cause of action was continuing and stood revived by repeated acts of non-implementation and by subsequent promotions granted to juniors.
27. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the petitioner had already retired from service and that denial of promotional consideration (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (14 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] during his service tenure would result in irreparable prejudice, which could not be adequately compensated at a later stage. Learned counsel submitted that service jurisprudence recognises the right of an employee to be considered for promotion as a fundamental facet of equality, and arbitrary denial thereof vitiates the entire decision-making process.
28. On these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the writ petition be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondent Board in terms of the prayers made therein.
29. The controversy in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-à-vis the private respondents in the cadre of Project Engineer (Senior) stood adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014. The said judgment has attained finality and is binding upon the respondent Board. Once seniority was restored in favour of the petitioner pursuant thereto, the legal consequence that necessarily followed was consideration of his claim for further promotion in accordance with law.
30. The record further discloses that even prior thereto, vide order dated 31.07.2012, the petitioner was assigned the duties of Resident Engineer on an ad hoc basis, albeit without grant of any additional pay or formal promotion. The said arrangement itself (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (15 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] reflects that the petitioner was considered suitable and competent to discharge the functions of the higher post. However, despite extracting work of the post of Resident Engineer from the petitioner, the respondent Board neither granted him substantive promotion nor extended the attendant service benefits.
31. It is evident from the material on record that after the judgment dated 15.07.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no effective compliance thereof was made by the respondent Board. While the petitioner's seniority was notionally restored, the consequential and substantive benefits flowing from such restoration were withheld. The private respondents, who were admittedly junior to the petitioner, continued to hold the post of Resident Engineer, whereas the petitioner was neither promoted to the said post nor were the private respondents reverted. The inevitable consequence was that the petitioner was compelled to work under the administrative and functional subordination of his juniors, a situation wholly incompatible with settled principles of service jurisprudence and institutional discipline.
32. Compliance with a judicial mandate cannot be partial or illusory. Mere restoration of seniority without corresponding consideration for promotion renders the implementation of the judgment ineffective in substance. The obligation of the respondent Board was either to grant promotion to the petitioner in accordance with his restored seniority or to realign the cadre position in a manner consistent with the judgment of the Hon'ble (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (16 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] Supreme Court. Failure to do either amounts to non-compliance in its true sense.
33. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion on account of the law laid down in K.K. Dixit's case is misconceived. The petitioner's seniority stood crystallised by a specific and binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his own case. Once such adjudication had taken place, it was not open to the respondents to deny consequential benefits by placing reliance on another decision, particularly when the judgment relied upon does not override or dilute the earlier determination inter partes.
34. Equally untenable is the plea that pendency of challenges to the seniority list dated 08.09.2016 (Annex.12) justified inaction on the part of the respondent Board. This Court had already permitted promotions to be made subject to final outcome of the pending proceedings. Acting upon such liberty, the respondent Board proceeded to promote officers junior to the petitioner, while simultaneously denying similar consideration to the petitioner himself. Such selective and unequal application of interim orders is manifestly arbitrary.
35. The objections relating to non-joinder of parties and delay do not merit acceptance. The petitioner is seeking enforcement of a final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consideration of his own claim for promotion. The cause of action is continuing, (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (17 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] particularly in view of repeated promotions granted to juniors even after the said judgment and during pendency of the writ petition.
36. The further objection founded on the petitioner's superannuation on 31.07.2017 is equally devoid of substance. An employee cannot be deprived of his accrued right to consideration for promotion on account of retirement, when such denial itself is under judicial scrutiny and is found to be illegal. To hold otherwise would permit an employer to defeat legitimate claims by sheer delay.
37. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the respondent Board failed to give effective and meaningful implementation to the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that the petitioner was unjustly denied promotion to the post of Resident Engineer, despite restoration of his seniority and despite having been made to discharge the duties of that post, resulting in his continued subordination to officers junior to him.
38. In view of the discussion and conclusions recorded hereinabove, the following directions are issued:-
(i) The respondent Board shall convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Resident Engineer for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner strictly in (Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (18 of 19) [CW-5463/2017] accordance with law and in the light of the judgment dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6516/2014, treating the petitioner as senior to the private respondents in terms of the restored seniority.
(ii) Upon such consideration, if the petitioner is found fit, as he prima facie appears to be, particularly having regard to the fact that he was assigned and discharged the duties of the post of Resident Engineer on an ad hoc basis vide order dated 31.07.2012, the respondent Board shall grant the petitioner promotion to the post of Resident Engineer from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted.
(iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to actual monetary benefits from the said date, including arrears of pay and allowances attached to the post of Resident Engineer, together with consequential re-fixation of pay and revision of pensionary and other retiral benefits. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the principle of "no work no pay" shall have no application, as the petitioner had in fact discharged the duties of the promotional post for a substantial period and the denial of promotion and pay was solely attributable to the inaction of the respondent Board.
(iv) Keeping in view the long passage of time, the nature of the controversy, and the equitable and benevolent approach adopted by this Court, it is clarified that no interest shall be payable on the arrears so released.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:54368] (19 of 19) [CW-5463/2017]
(v) The consequential arrears arising out of such promotion and re-fixation shall be computed and released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
(vi) It is further clarified that the promotions already granted to the private respondents shall not be disturbed. The relief granted to the petitioner shall operate personally and individually, without unsettling the cadre structure or adversely affecting the service benefits already extended to third parties, thereby balancing equities while ensuring meaningful compliance with the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(vii) The respondent Board shall complete the entire exercise in terms of this judgment expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.
39. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. All pending applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 12:57:56 PM) (Downloaded on 26/12/2025 at 09:11:20 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)