Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. -the challenge of this writ petitioner in this case is primarily against the order. r of reversion from the post of Assistant Electrical enginear to that of Junior Engineer. 2. This case has a rather grizzled course and this Court has had occasion to consider it time and again as would appear from the following narration of facts. 3. After obtaining Diploma in Electrical Engineering in the year 1950. the petitioner was appointed in the Electrical Department, Government of bihar as Electrical Overseer some time on 1st June, 1951. Subsequently the services of the petitioner were made permanent on the post of Electrical overseer with effect from the date of his appointment, Shri Kailash Rai, respondent No.4, who is much junior to the petitioner was appointed as electricial Overseer in the Electrical department some time on 14th January, 195s and was made permanent as Electrical Overseer on 15th March, 1958. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a gradation list prapard by the Bihar State Electricity Board in respect of the permanent electrical overseers, In the said list the petitioner was placed at serial No.33 and respondent No 4 was placed at serial No.75. A copy of the said gradation list has been made Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioners case is that thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant electrical Engineer (Sub-divisional Officer) and was posted as Assistant controller of Stores, Madhubani. Iimay be. mentioned here that during the period between December, 1969 and 31st May.1974 the petitioner bad to remain on leave due to his illness. The petitioner has, however, asserted that after obtaining medical of fitness from Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur; he joined his duty as Assistant electrical Engineer (S. N. O) and was posted as Assistant Controller of stores; Madhubani. before the said promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Controller of Stores could become affiective. it was postponed by an order dated 8th June, 1974 and ultimately by an order dated 21st june, 1374 it was cancelled Against such order of cancellation of promotion the petitioner filed a writ pesition before this Court which was numbered as c. W J C. No 986 of 1974 which was dismissed by an order dated 29th july, 1974. it was postponed by an order dated 8th June, 1974 and ultimately by an order dated 21st june, 1374 it was cancelled Against such order of cancellation of promotion the petitioner filed a writ pesition before this Court which was numbered as c. W J C. No 986 of 1974 which was dismissed by an order dated 29th july, 1974. Thereafter the petitionr had to appear before the Medical Board which certified that the petitioner had recovered from illness and found him fit to resume bis duties. 4. Then the petitioner again made a representation for his promotion to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer. On the basis of such representation, he was promoted as Assistant Electrical Engineer (Sub-divisional officer), Electrical Works Sub-division, Muzaffarpur bv an order dated 1st april, 1977. Again from the said post of Assistant Electrical Engineer the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer. Against the said reversion, the petitioner again filed another writ petition which was numberd as C. W. J C No.5318 of 1978. which was admitted by a Division bench of this Court and the reversion orders was stayed. During the pendency of that writ petition, the petitioner wag again sought to be reverted as Junior Engineer under respondent No.4 by an order dated 30th April.1931. The petitioner challenged the same by filing an amendment petition in the pending writ proceeding and the operation of the said order of reversion was stayed by the said Couri and thus he petitioner continued to work as assistant Electrical Engineer. Ultimately that writ petition being C W J. C. No.5)18 of 1978 was allowed by a judgment and order dated 9th May, 1984 and the order of if reversion passed against the petitioner was quashed. The operative portion of the said order dated 9th May, 1994 passed by the division Bench of this Court is set out below :- "for the reasons stated above the application is allowed, Annexure-8 is hereby quashed leaving the State Government to pass approprate ordes if it so likes, after giving opportunity to the petitioner If the State government does not pass any fresh order within six months, the petitioner will be entitled to all benefits counting his continuity to the post he hed on 29-11-1978. 5. 5. The petitioner thereafter sent the certified copy of the judgment dated 9th May 1984 along with a representation dated 31st July, 1984 asking the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit in accordance with the said judgment dated 9th May, 1984 The petitioner thereafter sent a reminder on 14th December, 1984 for his regularisation on the post of Assistant electrical Engineer and for payment of difference of pay of the salary on the said post apart from being giving a consequential promotion to the next higher rank of Electrical Engineer which was given to his Juniors. Six months from the date of judgment dated 9th May, 1984 expired on 9th 9th November, 1984 but the respondents authorities did not pass any order of reversion of the petitioner Thereafter by an order dated 25th March, 1985 respondent No 4, the petitioners junior, was posted as Electrical executive Engineer for six months directly over the head of the petitioner. Challenging the said order dated 25th March.1984 the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court which was numbered as C W. J C. No 3231 of 1985. During the pendency of the said writ application, respondent No.2 further passed an order dated 1st November, 1985 purporting to revert the petitioner from the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (S. D O.)to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer, This order dated 1st November, 1985 was challenged by the petitioner by way of an amendment petition and the same was stayed by this Court in this proceeding being C W J. C. No.3231 of 1985. Thereafter the matter was heard finally by a Division bench of this Court and by an order dated 10th December, 1985 the writ petition was dismissed, inter alia, on the finding that there is no infirmity in the orders passed on ?5th March, 1985 and 1st November, 1985, as contained in Annexures 15 and 17 to the writ petition. 6. Against the said order dated 10th December, 1985. Special leave petition being S. L. P No 301 of 1986 was filed which gave rise to Civil appeal No.3416 of 1986 The Hon ble Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 5th September, 1986 set aside the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10th December, 1985. The judgment psased by the Hon ble supreme Court it set out below : "special leave granted. Arguments heard. The judgment psased by the Hon ble supreme Court it set out below : "special leave granted. Arguments heard. We are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appellant jagannath Prased Verma who holds the substantive rank of a junior Electrical Enginear in the Bihar Electricity Department, has been off and on placed in current charge of the duties of assistant Electrical Engineer during the last about 70 years without being afforded a chance of promotion. The State Government has, in the meanwhile, given promotion to respondent No.4 Kailash Rai who is junior to him and who, we are informed, is not only not duly qualified to hold the post but also against whom a CB1 inquiry is pending and who is on bail. The High court failed to appreciate that such supersession by a junior against whom there is a criminal case registered and denial of promotion to the appellant who admittedly is senior to him, cannot be justified unless there are valid grounds for such supersession. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High court and remit the writ petition for a re-hearing on merits after notice to the parties We direct that the impugned order dated november 1, 1984 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government by when the appellant has been recalled from his current charge to his substantive post shall remain suspended till the dispose) of the writ petition by the High Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The costs shall abide the event. " 7. As this writ petition was remitted for hearing on merits upon notice to the parties, the matter was placed before several Benches of this court. Initially on 17th December, 1986 the nutter was paced before a division Bench which directed the matter to go out of the list on the grounds mentioned in that order. Thereafter the matter was heard by a learned single Judge of his Court on several dates, namely on 3rd August, 1994, 4th august, 1994, 24th August, 1994 and 30th September, 1994 and ultimately by an order dated 23rd December, 1994, the learned Single Judge released the matter. Thereafter the matter was heard by a learned single Judge of his Court on several dates, namely on 3rd August, 1994, 4th august, 1994, 24th August, 1994 and 30th September, 1994 and ultimately by an order dated 23rd December, 1994, the learned Single Judge released the matter. Thereafter the matter as placed for hearing before me and was heard by me on 27th June.1995 and 28th June, 1991 On 28th June, 1993 this Court passed an order for interim settlement of the claim of the writ petitioners pensionary benefits and the judgment was reserved which is being delivered today. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 1st Novemder, 1985 it appears that the same was pasted, inter aha. on certain allegations against the petitioner, one of them is the pendency of a C. B I Inquiry. The other allegation is that the joining of the petitioner in the Department on 4th november, 1976, after his medical leave, was irregularly approved. It is not in dispute that but for the passing of the impugned order the petitioner was entitled to hold the said post substantivaly and his junior has been promoted to that post. Therefore, the impugned order having been passed against the petition on certain allegations actually is an order of reduction in rank and is not an order of reversion. 9. On perusal of the impugned order this Court further finds that the same is based on certain wrong assumption of factual position, namely, that the order of the Court dated 9th May, 1984 was received by the Electricity department on 2nd May, 1985 whereas from the uncontroverted statement made in the writ petition it appears that the certified copy of the order of this Court dated 9th May, 14 was sent to the respondents by the petitioner on 31st July.1984 and then again a reminder was sent on 14th December, 1984. In the background of this un-controverted facts, the assertion made in the impugned order that the judgment of this Court was received by them on 2nd May, 1985 is not acceptable to Court. These fact have been stated in paragraph 13 of the amendment petition which was served upon the respondents and while dealing with the said paragraph in paragraph 52 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no denial has been made. These fact have been stated in paragraph 13 of the amendment petition which was served upon the respondents and while dealing with the said paragraph in paragraph 52 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no denial has been made. The other glaring factual error which finds place in the impugned order is that there is serious charge against the petitioner which is a subject matter of a case lodged by the C. B. I. whereas in fact, there is no C B. I. case lodged against the petitioner and this fact has been stated in paragraph 12 of the amendment petition and the same has been dealt with in paragraph 54 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents where they have admitted that no case was lodged by the C. B. I. ultimately against the petitioner. In the said paragraph the respondents have come out with a plea that a sum rs 29,844,70 P was un-accounted for by the petitioner but admittedly the impugned order of reversion is not based on that particular fact. 10. It is, therefore, clear from perusal of the impugned order of reversion dated 1st November, 1985 that the same was passed on the basis of certain allegation against the petitioner and as such the said order was passed by way of penalty and the said reversion amount actually to a reduction in rank. Reduction in rank is certainly a major penaly but in the instant case the said penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner under the impugned order by the respondents authorities without at all following the procedure of holding an inquiry against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the guarantee of,. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution which is available to the petitioner is being totally breached while passing the impugned order of reversion which amounts to reduction in rank of the petitioner. 11. The impugned order dated 1st November, 1985 is, therefore, wholly un-sustainable in the eye of law. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the impuged order of purported reversion passed against the petitioner is wholly invalid and in-operative in the eye of law and the same is, therefore, set aside. 11. The impugned order dated 1st November, 1985 is, therefore, wholly un-sustainable in the eye of law. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the impuged order of purported reversion passed against the petitioner is wholly invalid and in-operative in the eye of law and the same is, therefore, set aside. The petitioner must he treated to have retired on 3 st January, 1988 as the Assistant Electiical Engineer, the post to which he was appointed by an order dated 1st April, 1977. 12. Since the petitioner has already retired, there is no question of the petitioner being given the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer. This Court also refrains from making any finding relating to the claim of seniority between the petitioner and respondent No 4 in view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service during the pendency of this writ petition, 13. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner must be Riven the benefit of pay and all other consequential benefits attached to the post of assistant Electical Engncer till the date of his retirement. The said difference of pay between the pav of the post to which the petitioner was posted by reason of the impugned order and the pay attached to the post of Assistant electrical Engineer must be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the Hate of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner must also, be calculated on the basis that the petitioner retired from service as an Assistant Electrical Engineer. Such pensionary benefits and all other retirement dues of the petitiouer must be finalised within a period of three months from the date of production/ receipt of a copy of this judgment. 14. This writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.