Judgment The petitioner who was appointed initially as a temporary clerk in the police in the year 1934 was ultimately on the 16th June, 1969 appointed as the Head Assistant in the upper Division scale and posted in the once of the Deputy Inspector General (Military police and Training) respondent no.-3. In this office a post of Section Officer was created by Memo No. 3/MI-2027/66 Cri. As 8962 dated the 16th September, 1971 of the State Government in the Department of Home (Police ). A copy of which has been made Annexure-8. 2. The petitioner claims to be the senior most Assistant in the office of the Deputy Inspector General (Military Police and Training) and entitled to get this Post of Section Officer when it was created. The seniority of the petitioner in his office stands confirmed by the office order dated the 12th June, 1973 of the State of Bihar in the Department of Personnel (Annexure-10) as well as the letter issued by the office of the Deputy Inspector General (Military Police and Training) under Memo No. 2/01 dated the 26th July 1973 (Annexure19). In the Personnel Department Memo. (Annexure-I8) it was very clearly stated that the ministerial officers working in the office of the Deputy Inspector General (Military Police and Training) were under a separate cadre than those working in the office of the Inspector General of Police (respondent No 2). On the basis of this position the petitioner claims that he alone was entitled to promotion to the post of the Section Officer when it was created but by the impugned order dated the 8th March, 1972 (Annexure-11) it was given to respondent No.4 Radha Krishna Singh who was working in the office of the Inspector General of Police on an assumption that ministerial officers working in the office of the Deputy Inspector General (Military Police and Training) and of Inspector General of Police were under one cadre. The petitioner there after tiled a representation to the Inspector General of Police for his promotion to the post of Section Officer but the Inspector General of Police by his order dated the 13th September, 1973 (Anneure-20) refused to alter the order and maintained that the promotion of Respondent no. 4 was rightly made on the basis of the joint cadre. 3. 4 was rightly made on the basis of the joint cadre. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents in support of the authenticity of the order contained in Annexure 18 and the various other office orders and communications made by the office of the Deputy Inspector General (Military Police and Training) (respondent no. 3). 4. Mr. Jagarnath Jha appearing for respondents 1 to 3 however, wanted to place before us certain departmental correspondence from the file in his possession. As no counter affidavit has been filed we did not deem it desirable to grant him any such opportunity to the prejudice of the petitioner. None the-less we permitted him to point out the material if any, which could contain the clear position taken by the Government itself in Annexure 13 and the stand vindicated by respondent no. 3 in support or the petitioner's case but he could not point out any. The position therefore that obtains from the facts leads to an unassailable conclusion that the impugned order dated the 8th March, 1972 (Annexure• 11) promoting respondent no. 4 is contrary to the Government instruction and cannot be sustained, 5. The misfortune of the petitioner, however, is that after the filing of the writ application he retired from the service on 30th November, 1973 and as such cannot be ordered to be promoted to the post of the Section Officer to which otherwise he was entitled on the date when the application Was filed. On that account, however, we do not see any difficulty in granting him a smaller relief on the footing that the impugned order (Annexure 11) passed by the Inspector General of Police (respondent no. 2) was illegal, namely, that he must be entitled to the emoluments to the which he would have been otherwise entitled had he been promoted but for the wrong and invalid order. Mr. Rama Raman appearing for the petitioner although could not cite any direct decision where a similar situation had arisen, he placed decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Choudhuri Vs. Mr. Rama Raman appearing for the petitioner although could not cite any direct decision where a similar situation had arisen, he placed decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Choudhuri Vs. Secretary to Government of West Bengal and others AIR 1964 Cal 265 where during the pendency of the writ application challenging the order of reversion of the petitioner after he had retired, while holding the order of reversion as invalid the learned Judge observed that in spite of that, the petition had not been rendered meaningless Or infructuous because on the quashing of the order the petitioner as entitled to the pay and pension etc. on the footing that he has never been reverted from his post. 6. Having given our anxious consideration to the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision we do not find any justification for departing from the said principle and would, accordingly, hold that in spite of his retirement the petitioner must be entitled to his emoluments including the higher salary and consequential benefits and advantages in relation to his pension etc. following from that, as if he had been promoted to the post of the Section officer from the 8th March, 1972 the date when respondent no. 4 was promoted on the post. The application accordingly succeeds to the extent indicated above but in the circumstances we shall grant no cost to the petitioner. Let an appropriate writ be issued accordingly. Application allowed in part.