Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The subject matter in this writ application is the order dated 7.7.95 as contained in Annexure-4. By the said order the petitioner was promoted on a regular basis to the post of Administrative Officer w.e.f. 8.2.88 instead of being given a notional promotion by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was also given pay scale for the post of A.O. for the period from 8.2.88 to 2.9.92. In the said order it has been clearly stated that the petitioners claim for promotion with respect to the period from 1982 to 1987 is not granted as others who were promoted, had better Character Rolls. 3. While considering the challenge of this petitioner to that order, this Court looked into the judgment of this Honble Court dated 22nd September, 1994 rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 1010/92 between the same parties. Both the parties submit that against the judgment no appeal had been preferred. The said judgment has attained finality and is binding on the respondent Company. The subject matter of challenge in that judgment is the order dated 24.12.91 which is at Annexure-2 to this writ petition. By the said order, petitioners claim for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer was granted w.e.f. 8.2.82 on a notional basis and the petitioner was denied back wages for the intervening period between 8.2.88 and 2.9.92. While considering the petitioners challenge against the said order dated 24th December, 1991, the learned Judge delivering the judgment has recorded the following findings. (I) In paragraph 10 of the judgment learned Judge has recorded that when there is no codified rule for promotion, the seniority is the only basis which requires consideration, and the learned Judge came to a positive finding that there is non-consideration of the petitioners case for promotion in between 1977-1987 and according to the learned Judge the same is a glaring example of arbitrariness of the respondents. (II) The learned Judge also came to a finding that all the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner were quashed and only punishment which survived was a mere censure and the petitioners appeal against the order was rejected. Even the learned Judge came to the conclusion that respondent Company did not give much weight to the minor punishment awarded to the petitioner while granting him promotion. Even the learned Judge came to the conclusion that respondent Company did not give much weight to the minor punishment awarded to the petitioner while granting him promotion. (III) The learned Judge came to a very positive finding that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner upto 2.11.87. Such finding has been recorded by the learned Judge in paragraph no. 11 of the judgment. (IV) The learned Judge also considered that while granting promotion to the petitioner the respondents have only to consider the character rolls for the last three years from the date of order of promotion and not beyond that. (V) The learned Judge reiterated that between 1977 to 1987 there was no adverse remark against the petitioner. (VI) In paragraph no. 15 of the judgment the learned Judge also came to the finding that there was no codified rule service rule for promotion. In 1977, about 70 persons were given promotion by pick and choose method who were admittedly junior to the petitioner and that the petitioners case was not considered. (VII) Learned Judge also reached a finding that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the respondents to justify this type of discriminatory treatment which was meted out to the petitioner. 4. After reaching aforesaid findings the learned Judge directed the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as in the light of findings referred to above. 5. This Court has extracted some of the findings reached by the learned Judge in order to show the implications of those findings which have become final and bind the respondents. Thus, the action of the respondent Company has to be judged in the context of those findings. So judged, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. 6. It is an admitted position that the basis for grant of promotion from 1977 to 1987 was seniority and during those years no punishment was imposed on the petitioner in tne departmental proceeding as the departmental proceeding had become non-est. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner in his C.R. and nothing was communicated to him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner in his C.R. and nothing was communicated to him. But the fact remains that (i) persons junior to the petitioners were promoted between 1977 to 1987 (ii) the basis for grant of such promotion was seniority alone and (iii) there is nothing against the petitioner as there is no adverse remark against him and no punishment was imposed on the petitioner by way of disciplinary measure. 8. In view of the aforesaid admitted position which is further buttressed by the findings of the learned Judge, this Court fails to understand why the petitioners case was not found eligible for promotion between 1977 to 1987. The only ground given in the impugned order is that he is not selected for promotion during 1982 to 1987 as persons who were promoted had better C.Rs. Since the principle for grant of promotion is merely seniority and not merit as is the clear finding of the learned Judge and there is nothing adverse against the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondent Corporation does not stand to reason. This Court finds that the petitioner has been harassed repeatedly in the hands of the respondent Company and he moved this Court several times. Now the petitioner retired from his service in 1999 and died also in the month of March, 1999 with a brooding sense of injustice which no Court can undo. So whatever decision, the Court may pass today will be a posthumous one. 9. Therefore, considering ail these facts, the Court forms the opinion that this is really a case where the principles decided by the Supreme Court in the case of The Comptroller & Auditor General V/s. K.S.Jagannathan reported in A.I.R, 1987 S.C.537 can be pressed into service. So whatever decision, the Court may pass today will be a posthumous one. 9. Therefore, considering ail these facts, the Court forms the opinion that this is really a case where the principles decided by the Supreme Court in the case of The Comptroller & Auditor General V/s. K.S.Jagannathan reported in A.I.R, 1987 S.C.537 can be pressed into service. The respondent authority (1) must consider on the basis of seniority alone the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post to which his juniors were promoted between 1977-1987 and pass an order to that effect within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, (2) the respondent authority must consider that since the petitioner has retired and is dead and there is no question of giving any post, the only question is of grant of notional benefit and on that basis fixation of higher retirement benefit on the promotion that may be granted to the petitioner (3) after granting initial promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, grant of subsequent promotion should also be considered for the post of Assistant Manager/Deputy Manager also. Such a decision also be taken within three months from today. 10. M.J.C. is also disposed of in view of this order. 11. The writ petition is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.