Judgment Sushil Kumar Jha, J. 1. The plaintiffs suit having been dismissed, he has preferred this appeal. 2. The relief prayed for in the suit is that the order, dated 17 October 1960, reverting the appellant from the post of station master at Mohuda in the scale of Rs.200 to Rs.300 (revised scale of Rs.250 to Rs.380) be declared to be illegal and unconstitutional being violative of the provisions of Art.311 () of the Constitution of India. On 24 January 1929, the plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a signaller under the Bengal Nagpur Railway and since then he is in the service of the railway administration. He was promoted to the rank of assistant station master in June 1932 and thereafter was promoted to the rank of station master in January 1950, in the grade and scale of Rs.1oo to Rs.185. Subsequently, on 31 March 1960, the plaintiff was selected for promotion to. the rank of station master in the grade of Rs.200 to Rs.300 (revised scale of Rs.250 to Rs.380) and posted as such and he assumed charge on 14 June 1960, as station master at Mohuda station. By the impugned order, dated 17 October 1960, (exhibit 3/c; exhibit A/26), he Was reverted to the substantive grade of station master in the scale of Rs.100 to Rs.185 and ordered to join at Manikui station. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was promoted to the higher rank and grade of station master at Mohuda on a substantive permanent basis. The case of the defendant-respondent is that he merely promoted to hold an officiating post and as such the reversion to his substantive grade of station master in the scale of Rs.100 to Rs 185 does not attract the provisions of Art.311 (8) of the Constitution as this was neither by way of any punishment nor was any stigma cast on the appellant 4. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on a finding that the appellant was not promoted permanently or substantively to the grade, he was only holding a temporary officiating post in the higher grade and no stigma was cast on him nor was the reversion by way of any punishment. 5. Sri S. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the finding of the trial Court regarding the temporary officiating promotion of the appellant was not proper and justified. 5. Sri S. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the finding of the trial Court regarding the temporary officiating promotion of the appellant was not proper and justified. It was next contended that, assuming that the appellant was holding a merely temporary officiating post in the higher rank and grade, his reversion was by way of punishment.1 shall deal with these points one after the other. 6. Apropos the first point, it is pertinent to note that there is no categorical statement in the plant to the effect that the plaintiff was permanently promoted to the substantive rank and grade of station master in the scale of rs.200 to Rs.300 (revised scale Rs.250 to rs.330 ). Apart from that, the plaintiff, who has examined himself as the sole witness in the case as P. W.1, has stated in the cross-examination as follows: " My confirmation was not done in the promoted rank. " the appointment letter, on which the plaintiff -appellant bases his claim, is said to consist of the office orders marked exhibits 1 and 2. Exhibit 1 is the final panel of station masters in the grade of Rs.200 to Rs.300 and forwarded to the officers and station masters concerned, wherein the plaintiff has been shown as having been one in the final panel of station masters in that scale as approved by chief operating superintendent. Exhibit 2 is a copy of order of promotions and transfers made by the Office of the Coal Manager, Adra, in the South- Eastern Railway, dated 30 April 1960 There is nothing in these two documents to show that the plaintiff was promoted permanently in the substantive upper grade. In view of his own statement referred to above. I do not think there is any infirmity in the judgment of the Court below holding that the appellant was promoted only to an officiating post in the upper grade and seals of pay. 7. This then brings us to the next question as to whether the impugned order as contained in exhibit 3/c; exhibit A/26 amounts to a punishment or victimization. The relveant portion of the order, dated 17 October 1960, addressed to the appellant run in these terms: "you were temporary promoted to officiate as station master in scale Rs.200 to Rs.300 and you assumed independent charge of the station master / Mohuda, on 14 June 1960. The relveant portion of the order, dated 17 October 1960, addressed to the appellant run in these terms: "you were temporary promoted to officiate as station master in scale Rs.200 to Rs.300 and you assumed independent charge of the station master / Mohuda, on 14 June 1960. During this period, you have given a very poor impression of your service as station master. * i regret that you have not been found suitable to manage Mohuda station and have, therefore, to revert you to your substantive grade of station master in scale of Rs.100 to Rs.185. You are posted at manikui in an existing vacancy. " The order as it stands cannot be said to be violative of the provisions of Art.311 (2 ). In one of the latest judgments of the Supreme court in the case of State of Mysore V/s. M. K. Gadgoli [a. I. R.1977 S. C.1617], it has been held that in the case of an officiating promotion a subsequent reversion to the substantive post on the ground of unsatisfactory nature of work does not amount to a reduction in rank. The language of the order of reversion in that case was more, or less the same as in the instant case. Sri S. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, invited our attention to a number of decisions of the supreme Court in the cases of Debash Chandra das V/s. Union of India [a. I. R.1970 S. C.77], state of Bihar V/s. Shiva Bhikshuk Misra [a. I. R 1971 S. C.1011] and Jagdish Prasad V/s. State of uttar Pradesh [a. I. R.1971 S. C.1224]. So far as the decision in the case of Debash Chandra das (vide supra), is concerned, it has been fully explained and distinguished by the supreme in the case of State of Punjab v. Kishan Das [a. I. R.1971 SC.766]. The principle laid down in the other decisions of the Supreme Court is unexceptionable. It is quite true that in order to find out whether an impugned order is by way of punishment or not, not only the order itself but the antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent conduct of the party may also in appropriate cases be taken into consideration. The principle laid down in the other decisions of the Supreme Court is unexceptionable. It is quite true that in order to find out whether an impugned order is by way of punishment or not, not only the order itself but the antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent conduct of the party may also in appropriate cases be taken into consideration. In the instant case, however, nothing has been shown to us either antecedent to, or contemporaneous with, the impugned order which could persuade me to take a view in favour of the appellant. Some pieces of correspondence, namely, the documents as contained in exhibit A/17, dated 19 December 1960, exhibit A/12, dated 14 November 1960 and exhibit A/8, dated 2 June 1961, were placed before us. These documents have absolutely no bearing on the nature of the order, dated 17 October 1960. They are in relation to matters arising from the disobedience by the appellant of the departmental orders subsequent to the impugned order. 8 In the result, therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, 1 shall make no order as to cost. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that since after the order in question was challenged in the suit the appellant has been made to retire compulsorily at the age of fifty-five without any justifiable reason and that, therefore, that order should be held to be illegal. There is no such prayer in the plaint nor even in the petition for amendment of the plaint subsequently filed. The Court below was not called upon to examine the merits of the order of compulsory retirement. I am, therefore, precluded on the pleadings of the parties to go into that question. 10. An apprehension was further raised on behalf of the appellant that he had not drawn his salary for a certain period during which he was actually performing the duties of station master in his substantive rank and grade in the pay scale of Rs.100 to Rs.185 and the railway administration (the respondent) may now take a plea of limitation against such payment. I do not think the respondent will be so harsh and unjust as not to make the payment of all the just dues of, the appellant for the period that he had actively performed his duties in the approved grade and pay scale and since after his retirement, if such amount is due to him as payable by the respondent, I am sure the respondent will make such payment with due despatch, should the appellant make such a request. Medini Prasad Singh, J. 11 I agree.