(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2. Respondent no. 1 has not chosen to appear in spite of notice. (3) THE dispute in this matter is as to promotion to the post of Senior Gestetner Operator in the Registry of the Delhi High court. It is a fact that the appellant was appointed as a peon on 1 9/04/1967 while respondent No.2, Nirmal, came to be so appointed on 12/08/1968. The post of Senior Gastetner Operator is available to be filled up by promotion from the post of Junior Gestetner Operator which both these parties came to hold. When the question of filling up the vacancy of the Senior Gestetner Operator came to be considered, the High court on the basis of performance promoted the second respondent in preference to the appellant. That gave rise to the dispute. (4) DURING the-pendency of this appeal here, the appellant has been appointed for a fixed period from 1/03/1988 to 28/02/1989 as Senior Gestetner Operator. Counsel appearing for the appellant tells us that the appellant has been officiating as Senior Gestetner Operator with effect from February, 1984, without any break. In the absence of the respondent No.I before us we have not found it convenient to dispose of the matter finally. In case the statement of the appellants counsel is correct that from February, 1984, in a unbroken chain the appellant has been serving in the promotional post, we suggest the High court to regularise the same with effect from that date so that the present promotion which has been given by the order dated 9/03/1988, may enure to his benefit from 1984. We have no intention to prejudice respondent No.2 in any manner by this order. (5) WITH these observations, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.