K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, by way of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order at Annexure "c" in Appeal No. 530/80 dated 8th June 1982 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal qua non-payment of arrears of pay and allowances for the period from August 11,1977 to 24-1-1980. ( 2 ) THIS petition was originally filed through learned Advocate Mr. M. K. Joshipura. After his death, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner for filing necessary appearance in the matter which was served on him on 25-2-92. However, till date neither any appearance is filed on his behalf nor any application is made by him requesting this Court to give him personal hearing as and when the matter is called out for hearing. To-day when the matter is called out for hearing, the petitioner is not present. Since the petition is of 1983, the same is being disposed of on merits, even in absence of the petitioner, after perusing the case papers. ( 3 ) AS averred in the petition, the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste. He joined the services in the District Panchayat, Valsad, as a Junior Clerk on 3-6-66. He was promoted as Statistical Assistant under the said Panchayat with effect from 1st July, 1977. Subsequently he was appointed as Senior Clerk with effect from 14-6-78. It is his grievance that when the question of promotion to the post of Aval Karkum arose in the year 1977, disregarding the government orders of preferential claims under the roster system of the employees belonging to SC and ST. some illegal promotions had been given. ( 4 ) IT appears that the petitioner approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by way of appeal No. 214/79 claiming promotion to the post of Aval Karkun with effect from llth August, 1977. The Tribunal on 17th October, 1979 allowed the appeal and directed that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Aval Karkun with immediate effect and he should be given as the deemed date of promotion the date on which he would have been promoted to the post of Aval Karkun if the roster system had been properly applied treating the petitioner as senior clerk with effect from the date he would have been promoted as Senior Clerk but for his promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant. In compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, the petitioner was promoted to the post of aval Karkun by respondent No. 2 on 6th December, 1979 with the result one G. D. Shaikh was reverted. It appears that said Shri Shaikh challenged his reversion order by filing a writ petition being SCA No. 3542/79 and obtained ad-intcrim order staying the petitioners promotion. Ultimately that order of stay came to be vacated and this Court directed that. "as. regards respondent No. 1 (that is the petitioner herein) the District development Officer to appoint him in the first vacancy in the clerical cadre in accordance with the directions given by the Service Tribunal". The petitioner was accordingly promoted as Aval Karkun on 22nd January 1980. It appears that the District development Officer, Valsad issued order Annexure "b" dated 18th June, 1980 whereby deemed date of promotion to the post of Aval Karkun was given to the petitioner from 1st september, 1977, subject to the clarification that thesaid service (of deemed promotion from 1-9-77 to 24-1-80) would not qualify far-claiming difference of pay and allowances and would be taken into consideration only for the purpose of annual increment and seniority. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Gujarat Civil Services tribunal by way of Appeal No. 530/80 praying for (i) giving deemed date of promotion to the post of Aval Karkun from 1st Sept. 1977 to 1lth August 1977, and (ii) allowing him difference in pay and allowances as admissible from 11th August, 1977 to 24-1-1980 in respect of the post of Aval Karkun. The Tribunal by its award at Annexure "c" dated 8th june, 1982, partly allowed the appeal by modifying the order dated 18-6-80 passed by the ddo:" --TO the extent that holding the present appellants deemed date 1-9-1977 is cancelled and that his deemed date should be from the date of the order filing up the post to which the present appellant was entitled, namely, 11-8-1977. " however, prayer for difference in pay and allowances from llth August, 1977 to 24-1-1980 in respect of the post of Aval Karkun was rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioner as stated above, has challenged this part of the order of the Tribunal. " however, prayer for difference in pay and allowances from llth August, 1977 to 24-1-1980 in respect of the post of Aval Karkun was rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioner as stated above, has challenged this part of the order of the Tribunal. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner has challenged the said order contending that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case in their proper perspective in the sense that the case of the petitioner was not of notional promotion but the promotion to the post of Aval Karkun was a deliberate denial to him by not complying with the mandatory orders of the government pertaining to roster system and that respondent No. 2 had indulged into favouritism to persons belonging to non-scheduled caste at the cost of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that he be held entitled to get the arrears of pay and allowances from 11th August, 1977 itself. ( 6 ) AFTER having perused the case papers. I find no merits in the contention of the petitioner raised by him in the petition. In the instant case, the respondents have fixed the deemed date on the basis of seniority after considering the case on merits and in light of the observations made by the Tribunal in its earlier judgment passed in Appeal No. 214/79 dated 17th October, 1979. Merely because the deemed date is given, that would not automatically entitle the petitioner to claim arrears from the deemed date of promotion as for all this period the petitioner had not actually worked. Fixation of deemed date of the promotional post and the fixation of pay on the basis of deemed date are merely notional. It is clear from the order at Annexure "b" that for annual increment and seniority the deemed date would be taken into consideration and, therefore, as stated above, the petitioner cannot claim arrears from the deemed date of his promotion. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, I see no merit in this petition. Hence it is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .