JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of a direction to the respondents for fixing of emoluments and salary and other monetary benefits available to the petitioner by fixing his seniority and by grant of notional promotion if he is entitled to during the period and on occasions when persons junior to him were promoted. He also seeks a direction for payment of all the monetary benefits immediately. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was working as a Deputy Jailor, central Jail, Raipur, in the year 1963, from where he was removed from service. Against this removal he preferred an appeal and by orders dated 24th Match 1970 the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him and he was reinstated and continued in service. As a result of this order he resumed his duties on 31st March 1970 but as he reached the age of superannuation on 7th April 1970 he was retired from Government service. After his retirement, according to the petitioner, in supersession of the orders passed in his appeal on 24th March 1970, further order was passed on 18th December 1973 and by this order it was directed: (i) that the petitioner will be treated as re-appointed w. e. f. 31-3-1970 to 6-4-1970; (ii) that the petitioner will get his full pay and allowances for the period upto 2-3-1968; and (iii) that for the period from 2-3-1968 to 30-3-1970 the petitioner will not get any pay and allowance. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a petition in this Court which was Misc. Petition No, 54 of 1977 and this Court allowed the petition and directed that "the petitioner having been exonerated was entitled to the benefits which accrued to him during this period. No such adverse order was made under Fundamental Rule 54. Therefore, there was nothing that stands in the way of the petitioner to claim entitlement for the pay and emoluments till 6-4-1970. "it is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of these directions from this Court the directions were not complied with although the petitioner moved a number of applications before the respondent authorities and even sought interviews. It is further alleged that in spite of efforts and notice when emoluments were not paid but only an interim payment of Rs. 10,907. It is further alleged that in spite of efforts and notice when emoluments were not paid but only an interim payment of Rs. 10,907. 60 Paise was made on 27th February 1981, the petitioner moved this Court again for action under the Contempt of courts Act which was M. C. C. No. 44 of 1981. In this petition the counsel for the State gave an undertaking that a specific order detailing as to how the applicant was entitled to Rs. 10,097,55 only will be passed and communicated to the applicant within a period of two months from that day so that if the petitioner felt dissatisfied with that order, he may stake appropriate proceedings. It appears that on this undertaking a direction was issued which read : "in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this petition by issuing a direction as per the undertaking given by the counsel for the State that the State should pass a detailed order indicating the entitlement of the applicant for rs. 10907. 55 only and communicate the same to him within two months from today. " According to the petitioner, even in spite of this direction which was issued by this Court on 30th September 1982, nothing was done and the petitioner again submitted a representation on 12th November 1982 and ultimately the petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 3. ) IN the return filed by the State, it is surprising that the stand on the basis of Fundamental Rule 54 has again been taken when in the judgment of the Misc. Petition No. 54 of 1977 this Court had clearly observed "no such adverse order was made under Fundamental Rule 54 and, there fore, a direction was issued to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioner. It is unfortunate that in spite of this decision by this Court the State has been raising pleas which have been disposed of earlier and the officers of the State have not been able to settle the matters and pay the emoluments which he was entitled to during all these years. The manner in which the matters are being delayed speaks volumes about the efficiency of the administration. The manner in which the matters are being delayed speaks volumes about the efficiency of the administration. From the year 1970 to the year 1984 it is more than twelve years and in the context of these circumstances as have appeared in this case the petitioner apprehends whether still the matters would be settled. ( 4. ) A statement about payments made to the petitioner has been filed along with the return. Learned counsel for the parties have verified" it and it has been found that as regards salary every thing has been paid" except full payment from 8-7-1963 to 18-8-1965 as the stand taken in all these proceedings by the State Government was that as this period has been treated as leave whatever due to the petitioner i. e. earned leave for 16 days, half" pay leave for 277 days and extra ordinary leave without pay for 480 days, and, therefore, it is apparent that full salary for this period Iras been paid. , it is not disputed before me that full salary for this period deducting the amount which might have been paid because of treating him on half-pay leave or full-pay leave, the rest of the amount remains still to be paid. . ( 5. ) THE main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that after the decision of the writ petition and after the: undertaking given by the State in the M. C. C. there is no option left with the respondent State but to pay all salaries for the full period in accordance with the directions of this Court in the writ petition which, was decided. earlier. ( 6. earlier. ( 6. ) THE next contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as his removal was set aside on appeal and the petitioner was completely exonerated during the period during with which he remained out of employment because of the order of removal if his juniors have been promoted on the dates on which a person in the department junior to the petitioner was promoted he was entitled to be considered for promotion and if there is nothing against him otherwise than this order of removal which has ultimately been set aside, he will have to be considered for promotion and if found fit shall be treated as deemed to have been promoted On that particular date and in this respect it is contended that the matter will have to be reconsidered and if he is found fit and on any particular date when his juniors were promoted then from that date onwards the petitioner shall be entitled to the salary of the post on which otherwise he would have been promoted and posted and his monetary benefits, there fore, will have to be calculated on that basis. It was contended by the learned deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State that this fictional deemed promotion can only be granted if there was a post available at the time when he might have got his turn for promotion and that as he was out of employment juniors to the petitioner were promoted to fill up the post which was available then. It was therefore contended that now without joining those who were promoted because of petitioner being out of employment the question of his promotion on those dates could not be considered as that will indirectly involve reduction in rank of those officers who were promoted. It was, therefore, contended that this contention could not be accepted. It is apparent that for his promotion the question of having a post available is not material as it is clear that the petitioner has retired in April 1970 and the question of his promotion which has to be considered is for calculating the monetary benefits as the right to which he was entitled to if this order of removal on the day on which juniors were promoted could not be taken away merely because an order which was ultimately found to be bad was in force. In substance, when the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in the post, the result is that the order of removal for all practical purposes has been washed away. Under these circumstances, therefore, the case of the petitioner will have to be considered when his juniors were promoted for a higher post and the question whether a post is available on that date or not is of no consequence as the post was available and, therefore, only a junior than the petitioner was promoted. The only question, therefore, is that on such dates during the period when the petitioner was out of employment if occasions arose when juniors were considered for promotion and ultimately promoted on those dates the case of the petitioner will have to be considered. It is no doubt true that promotion is not a right but to get considered for. promotion is a right and that question cannot be disputed. Under these circumstances, it is directed that on dates during which the petitioner was out of employment, if any junior to the petitioner was promoted his case will be considered for promotion and if except the order of removal there was anything else which shall be considered by the State and come to a conclusion whether the petitioner was entitled to the promotion on that date or not and if he is found by the competent authority that he was entitled to promotion on that date he shall be deemed to have been promoted on that date and the monetary benefits will be counted from that date onwards up to the date of retirement in accordance with the normal rules. ( 7. ) THE other question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in spite of the fact that Fundamental Rule 54 or 54-A was not invoked and this question was settled by the decision of the Divisional bench of this Court earlier, still there is no justification on the. part of the respondent to deny salary to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, after the decision in the petitioners case earlier there was no option but to pay full salary to the petitioner for all the period up to the date of his retirement. part of the respondent to deny salary to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, after the decision in the petitioners case earlier there was no option but to pay full salary to the petitioner for all the period up to the date of his retirement. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, however, attempted to contend that under Fundamental Rule 54-A (2), Proviso, there is a limitation of three years, but it was not seriously contested that that will only apply when the Government chooses to take an action under fundamental Rule 54-A (2 ). It is not necessary to consider these questions at all as the judgment of the writ petition decided on 31st August 1979 clearly lays down that as no orders under Fundamental Rule 54 were passed, the petitioner was entitled to full salary. In view of this judgment there is no occasion to raise this plea again and if it is raised I see no reason r. F.-54 to consider it. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be paid full salary in accordance with the direction of this Court and it is also directed that the question of Fundamental Rule 54 or 54-A (2) does not arise. It is also directed that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion as directed earlier and if found fit he shall be deemed to have been promoted and the monetary benefits of the petitioner will be settled on that basis. It is further directed that so far as the first part about payment of salary is concerned, the respondent shall comply with this direction within two months from today. So far as the question of considering him for promotion is concerned, it is directed that the said direction shall be complied with within six months from today. ( 8. ) THE petition is allowed. The petitioner will get costs of this petition. Counsels fee Rs. 250. Security amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.