ORDER CA No. 5690 of 1994 and SLP (C) No.... (CC No. 28474 of 1994) 1. Delay condoned and leave granted in the special leave petition. 2. The appellant was initially an employee under Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Corporation as a Geologist. While working as such, he was brought to the Groundwater Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh under a contract appointment as Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 3-8-1974. The appellant, however, immediately represented that he should be given the job of Senior Hydrogeologist but that representation does not appear to have been acceded to. The State Government ultimately passed an order absorbing the appellant as Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 6-9-1974 by Order dated 27-3-1981 and this order had been passed with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. 3. The appellant, being aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer to be absorbed as a Senior Hydrogeologist with effect from the date of his contractual appointment, approached the Tribunal. Subsequent to the . aforesaid absorption of the appellant on regular basis as Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 6-9-1974, the State Government passed an Order on 2-5-1986 requiring the appellant to be on probation as Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 20-4-1979. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant also approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, having rejected both the applications, the appellant is before us in these appeals. 4. Be it stated that the appellant was later on promoted to the post of Senior Hydrogeologist with effect from 1987 on the assumption that he is treated to be a probationer as Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 1979. In the meantime, the appellant also superannuated and has retired. 5. Mr Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a vehemently contends that in view of the fact that the appellant had been promoted to a higher post of Senior Hydrogeologist in Agro Industries Corporation, he could not have been absorbed even on contract basis as a Junior Hydrogeologist in the year 1974, and that, therefore, denial of his claim to be absorbed as a Senior Hydrogeologist with effect from 1974 is a constitutional infringement of his right. He further contended that in any b event, once the appellant had been regularised as a Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 6-9-1974 by Order dated 27-3-1981 with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission, the subsequent order requiring him to be on probation as a Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 1979 is wholly erroneous. 6. Having heard Mr Nageswara Rao at length and on examining the relevant materials on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree C with the first submission inasmuch as the contractual appointment itself was as a Junior Hydrogeologist. It would have been open for the appellant not to accept the same. But, having accepted the same, way back in the year 1974, he cannot be permitted to make a claim that he ought to have been absorbed as a Senior Hydrogeologist. That relief cannot be granted. 7. So far as the second submission of Mr Rao is concerned, we find d sufficient force in the same. The Order of the State Government dated 27-3-1981 under GOMs No. 139 absorbing the appellant as a Junior Hydrogeologist on regular basis with effect from the date of initial contractual appointment having been passed after due concurrence with the Public Service Commission, the same could not have been altered by the Government Order dated 2-5-1986. In our considered opinion, the Order of e the State Government dated 2-5-1986, is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. 8. We, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal dealing with the claim of the appellant in relation to the post of Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 6-9-1974 and hold that the appellant should be treated to be a regular Junior Hydrogeologist with effect from 6-9-1974. f On that basis, if the appellant is entitled to an earlier promotion to the post of Senior Hydrogeologist, the same may be considered and duly given to him. This may be done within a period of six months from today. 9. In the event the appellant is found to be entitled to promotion as Senior Hydrogeologist on an earlier point of time, he should be given the notional benefit and not the monetary benefit flowing therefrom, but his retiral benefits will have to be recalculated on that basis. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed. SLP (C) No. 14748 of 1994 11. None appears for the petitioner. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, partly allowed. SLP (C) No. 14748 of 1994 11. None appears for the petitioner. The special leave petition is dismissed.