Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Pursuant to Ext. P1 notification issued by the first respondent, Kerala Agricultural University, the petitioner applied for the post of First Grade Overseer and based on recruitment and appointment, he joined the service of the University as First Grade Overseer on 20.6.1983. Respondents 3 to 9 were also recruited likewise as Overseers; but subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner on different dates. Petitioner is aggrieved that respondents 3 to 5 were promoted as Assistant Engineers w.e.f. 11.11.1986 and respondents 6 to 8 were promoted w.e.f. February, 1987 overlooking the petitioner's seniority. The details in Ext. P5 seniority list would itself reveal that the petitioner commenced continuous service earlier than the aforesaid respondents. Petitioner also claims further promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in preference to respondents 3,5 and 9 aforementioned, who were promoted as Asst. Executive Engineers on 23.6.1993. The petitioner still remains in the lower post of Asst. Engineer. 2. The stand of the respondent University in the matter of said promotion is that the petitioner hails from the electrical branch, whereas the respondents belong to the civil branch and that they cannot be equated in the matter of promotion. It is also contended that the promotion due for the petitioner can be considered only when corresponding vacancy arises in the higher post in the electrical branch. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of special rules or even a proposal to have separate wings of the First Grade Overseers, irrespective of their branches, they have to be grouped together in the matter of seniority and that the stand of the respondents with regard to promotion cannot hence be sustained. It is also stated that the petitioner, though subsequent to his entry in the University service, has obtained a Diploma in Civil Engineering and as such is qualified to be considered for promotion even in the civil wing. The petitioner went on fighting for his due promotion and ultimately the Executive Committee decided to refer the matter to the decision of the Government. In Ext. P32 the Government clarified that if there was a vacancy prior to 6.11.1991 and the petitioner was eligible as per the common seniority list, it was nothing but fair to consider him for that post subject to the condition that he should satisfy other conditions for promotion. In Ext. P32 the Government clarified that if there was a vacancy prior to 6.11.1991 and the petitioner was eligible as per the common seniority list, it was nothing but fair to consider him for that post subject to the condition that he should satisfy other conditions for promotion. The claim of seniority came up for consideration of the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 22.1.2001, the minutes in respect of which is Ext. P48. As item 22, it was decided as follows : The Executive committee decided to grant the request of Shri. R. Raveendran Nair, Assistant Engineer (the present petitioner) to promote him to the cadre of Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 11.11.1986, provided he withdraws the two pending Original Petitions filed by him (O.P. No. 8723 of 1993 included) before the Hon'ble High court of Kerala". The said decision was communicated to the petitioner vide Ext. P49 and he was requested to withdraw the Original Petitions and report the details. The petitioner disagreed to the demand. 4. The University had decided in the Executive Committee meeting held on 30.1.2001, wherein Ext. P48 decision was normally to be confirmed, to add the word 'notional' in Ext. P48 decision after the word 'Assistant Executive Engineer' and also to add that the monetary benefit for the petitioners promotion will be given only from the date of decision of the Executive Committee. The seriously affected the claim of the petitioner. 5. In C.M.P. No. 18450 of 2001 the petitioner sought a direction to respondents to promote him to the cadre of Asst. Executive Engineer with effect from the date on which respondents 3 to 9 were promoted as Asst. Executive Engineers. While considering that petition the direction in Ext. P49 that the petitioner should withdraw the Original Petitions as condition precedent for such promotion was also considered by this court. This Court noticed that even if the petitioner withdrew the Original Petitions, he would be bound to forego the monetary benefits due from the date of retrospective promotion because what is decided by the Committee is that the promotion would be notional. It was directed therefore that the respondents should implement the decision in Ext. P48 to promote the petitioner as Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 11.11.1986 with immediate effect and that the aspect of effective date of monetary benefits would be considered in the Original Petition. It was directed therefore that the respondents should implement the decision in Ext. P48 to promote the petitioner as Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 11.11.1986 with immediate effect and that the aspect of effective date of monetary benefits would be considered in the Original Petition. It was also directed that the representation filed by the petitioner staking his claim for promotion as Asst. Executive Engineer should also be considered by the University within a period of two months. 6. Ext. P54 order of the University dt. 7.5.2001 followed. After referring to the interim direction of this court mentioned supra as also the earlier decisions, it was ordered that the decision of the Executive Committee to promote the petitioner as Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 11.11.1986 would be implemented with immediate effect subject to the condition that the aspect of effective date of monetary benefits would be considered in the Original Petition and that for the grant of the said interim relief the Original Petitions need not be withdrawn. Accordingly the petitioner got his promotion to the cadre of Asst. Engineer; but classified him as Asst. Engineer (Electrical) notionally with retrospective effect from 11.11.1986 and with condition that he would be permitted to draw revised salary w.e.f. 1.5.2001. One of the grievances projected before me during the arguments today is that inspite of that direction in Ext. P54 the petitioner, even after the expiry of one year from the date of order, is not given the revised salary due from 1.5.2001. 7. In the counter affidavit filed to C.C.C. No. 1166 of 2001, wherein the petitioner had complained to this court that the interim order remained unimplemented, the respondent Registrar stated that as per Annex. A3 order passed on 19.7.2001, produced by the petitioner in the C.C.C., (i.e. Ext. P60 in the Original Petition) the petitioner's representation had been considered in detail with reference to relevant provisions in the statute and decided that his request for grant of arrears with retrospective effect from 11.11.1986 and consequential service benefits would not be granted. The petitioner is aggrieved that Ext. P60 aforementioned is not in conformity with the directions of this Court because Ext. P60 is only a letter and not an order that is passed after consider of the matter by the Executive Committee. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved that Ext. P60 aforementioned is not in conformity with the directions of this Court because Ext. P60 is only a letter and not an order that is passed after consider of the matter by the Executive Committee. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the decision d. 17.2.1990 to go by common seniority list (See Ext, P17(a), decision to adopt branchwise seniority list for purpose of promotion in the cadre of Oversser and Asst. Engineers came up only in the year 1991 (see Ext. R1(d)) and the first order in the matter was passed only in the year 2000 and that neither any special rules nor any statutory provisions or other orders were available at any time before 1991 drawing ay separating line between the officers of the above cadre working in branches like Electrical, Civil, Mechanical etc. For that reason it is contended that seniority for the purpose of promotion should have been considered based on common seniority list and if so done the petitioner should be granted promotions atleast with effect from the dates on which the respondents got the same with monetary benefits. In this regard the decision in Food Corporation of India v. S.N. Nagarkar (2002 (1) Scale 516) and also the decision in Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala (1997(1) K.L.T. 601) are relied on. The contention is that where promotion is denied due to wrongful act of the authority and not due to any fault of the employee, monetary benefit has to be given with effect from the date on which the promotion became actually due and that there is no justification for making it only notional. The decision in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare ((1999) 8 S.C.C. 99) is relied on to contend that non-existence of statutory rules is no reason to deny the benefit of promotion, which, according to the decision in Desai v. Khanolker (1993(3) K.L.T. S.N. 40), should go by seniority based on length of service in common cadre. 9. According to Mr. Sugunapalan, learned standing counsel for the respondent University, the petition is belated and the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek to enforce Ext. 9. According to Mr. Sugunapalan, learned standing counsel for the respondent University, the petition is belated and the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek to enforce Ext. P48 decision in so far as there is no estoppel against statute and after all the decision was taken only by the Executive Committee and in that perspective there is no legal bar in the matter being reconsidered by the Executive Committee itself based on Ext. P51 notice or otherwise. He also submits that as early as on 6.11.1991 decision had been taken for separating the Engineering wing into various branches and ever since then promotions have bee given only based on branchwise seniority. Even on the practical side, when a vacancy arises, it would not be possible to fill it by promoting a person who is not experienced in that branch and as such giving any promotion to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) would be impracticable. Ex.R1(b) is relied on to show that a provisional list showing the respective branches in which the different Overseers worked was circulated vide Ex. R1(b), but the petitioner did not object. The respondents 3 to 5 and 6 to 8 had been promoted as Asst. Engineers as per Exts. R1(c) and R1(d) as early as on 11.11.1986 and 3.2.1987 respectively and the present challenge is made only in the year 1993. Exts. P7 to P9 are relied on to show that they contain the admissions of the petitioner to show that seniority can only be branchwise. It is only in Ext. P12 filed on 15.3.1993 that the petitioner, for the first time, makes a contention that seniority should be based on date of commencement of service irrespective of the branch in which recruited. 10. I have considered he respective submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner commenced the service as First Grade Overseer on 20.6.1983, whereas the respondents, who were also appointed as First Grade Overseers, joined duty only later. Respondents 3 to 5 were promoted as Asst. Engineers w.e.f. 11.11.1986 overlooking the general seniority, which the petitioner claims. The petitioner was promoted on 6.10.1987 vide Ext. P4. The difference in effective date of promotion that is in dispute between the parties is only between 11.11.1986 and 6.10.1987. Even according to the respondents the decision for separating the Engineering wing into branches was taken only on 6.11.1991. Engineers w.e.f. 11.11.1986 overlooking the general seniority, which the petitioner claims. The petitioner was promoted on 6.10.1987 vide Ext. P4. The difference in effective date of promotion that is in dispute between the parties is only between 11.11.1986 and 6.10.1987. Even according to the respondents the decision for separating the Engineering wing into branches was taken only on 6.11.1991. As on the date when the petitioner and respondents were promoted, the said decision was no here. He appointment orders had no mentioned that the service would be branchwise or that seniority would be on that basis. It has also come out during bearing that even the regular promotion given to the petitioner on 6.10.1987 was by conversion of the post of an Assistant Engineer (Civil). That itself shows that until 6.11.1991 there was no seniority list or system of promotion, which was confined to particular branch. It is in this background that Ext. P48 decision of the Executive Committee has to be seen. There was no legal bar against taking a decision of that nature. As per Ext. P49 the decision was communicated to the petitioner. It was clearly stated therein that the Committee had decided to promote him to the cadre of Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 11.11.1986, provided he withdrew the two Original Petitions pending before this Court. During hearing of the Original Petition the fact that such an order was passed was brought to the notice of this Court and this Court passed an interim order in C.M.P. No. 18450 of 2001 on 2.4.2001 directing the respondents to implement Ext. P48 decision with immediate effect, subject to the condition that the aspect of effective date of monetary benefit would be considered in the Original Petition and that the said relief would be given without instating on the condition that the Original Petitions should be withdrawn. The direction was complied with by the University vide Ext. P54 order dt. 7.5.2002. The petitioner has thus obtained the benefit of retrospective effect for his promotion obtained on 6.10.1987 with effect from 11.11.1986. Since the interim order was based on a decision of the Executive Committee itself and the promotion is one given with effect from the date on which the juniors of the petitioner were promoted as Asst. P54 order dt. 7.5.2002. The petitioner has thus obtained the benefit of retrospective effect for his promotion obtained on 6.10.1987 with effect from 11.11.1986. Since the interim order was based on a decision of the Executive Committee itself and the promotion is one given with effect from the date on which the juniors of the petitioner were promoted as Asst. Engineers and in the absence of any legal bar as per any statute or University decisions for giving such retrospective effect, I am of the view that the promotion given vide Ext. P54 can be confirmed. 11. What remains to be considered are the aspects of monetary benefits and the further promotions due to the petitioner. As already mentioned, the difference between the date of original promotion and the notional promotion now granted is only of 11 months. The monetary benefit arising during the period will not be substantial. I find no justification for compelling the University to give monetary benefit for the petitioner in respect of a period when the petitioner was actually not working as Asst. Engineer. The prayer for giving monetary benefit for the promotion w.e.f. 11.11.1986 is hence declined. It is, however, made clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner getting all monetary benefits with effect from the date of his actual promotion viz. 6.10.1987 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. 12. During hearing it was confirmed by the learned standing counsel that the post of Asst. Executive Engineer (Electrical) has fallen vacant with the retirement of an existing hand on 31.5.2002. The petitioner is the seniormost Asst. Engineer in the service of the Agricultural University in the Electrical branch. That fact is admitted in the counter of the University as well. In the circumstances there is absolutely no justification to deny the petitioner the benefit of promotion as Asst. Executive Engineer (Electrical) in the aforesaid vacancy. There will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner in the aforesaid vacancy within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before them, The Original Petition is disposed of as above.