Judgment 1. The petitioner who retired from the service of the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) filed this writ petition challenging an order issued by the Administrator under his memo no. 1545 dated 7.1.2000 (Annexure-1). By this order the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector from the date of the issuance of the order with the stipulation that the benefit of promotion will accrue to him for pension w.e.f. the date of the order. The promotion was further made subject to the condition that on finalisation of the joint gradation list of Sanitary Supervisor and Inoculators in case it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the basis of his position in the gradation list, the order of promotion shall stand automatically cancelled. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order in so far as it allows him promotion from a date posterior to his retirement from service and thus denies him all monetary benefits for the period while he was still in service. He seeks a direction to the competent authority in the Corporation to make his promotion effective from an earlier date when persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Sanitary Inspector and to give him the monetary benefits from that date. 2. The material facts are brief and simple. On being appointed as Inoculator on 15.9.1960 the petitioner joined the service of the Corporation on 17.9.1960. In September, 1972 he completed training in elementary hygiene. By order No. 804 issued by the Administrator on 21.10.1974 he, along with four others, was deputed to work as Sanitary Inspector in the circle shown against his name in that order. The petitioner was also allowed special allowance of 20% of his pay for working on the higher post of Sanitary Inspector. While the petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector, the Administrator by his order, dated 21.43 (sic). 1977 permitted him to undergo the training of Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner completed his training from Public Health Institute, Government of Bihar, Patna and was given a certificate from the Institute (Annexure-2), stating that he was qualified for being appointed as Sanitary Inspector. 3. While the petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector, the Administrator by his order, dated 21.43 (sic). 1977 permitted him to undergo the training of Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner completed his training from Public Health Institute, Government of Bihar, Patna and was given a certificate from the Institute (Annexure-2), stating that he was qualified for being appointed as Sanitary Inspector. 3. After the petitioner had worked as Sanitary Inspector for a number of years, he and another employee, namely Kishori Mahto, who also was working as Sanitary Inspector, though holding the substantive post of Inoculator were sought to be reverted to their substantive post on the basis of the decision of the Departmental Committee dated 15.4.1993.The petitioner and Kishori Mahto filed C.W.J.C. No. 3915 of 1993 challenging the decision/order reverting them as Inoculators. That writ petition along with two other analogous cases was allowed by judgment and order dated 26.8.1994 (Annexure-4). From that judgment it appears that the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee was based on the premise that Sanitary Inspector was a promotional post for Sanitary Supervisors and it did not fall in the line of promotion for Inoculators and it was mainly on that ground that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was opposed before this court on behalf of the Corporation. 4. This court, however, did not accept the Corporations contention and made the following observations in that regard. "There is nothing on record to substantiate the bald statement made in the counter affidavit that only Sanitary Supervisors can be considered for appointment and promotion to the posts of Sanitary Inspector nor anything has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the Corporation in this behalf. It has not been disputed on behall of the Corporation that there are no statutory rules governing recruitment to the posts of Sanitary Inspector nor has regular selection been made to the posts of Sanitary Inspector and officials have been continuing as Incharge Sanitary Inspectors for fairly long time. It is not the case of the Corporation that the petitioners were not efficiently discharging their duties or there were complaints against their conduct. It is not the case of the Corporation that the petitioners were not efficiently discharging their duties or there were complaints against their conduct. The petitioners have been continuing as Incharge Sanitary Inspectors for over 10 years could not have been treated to have been working in a mere stop-gap-arrangement and they ought to have been allowed to continue to work as Incharge Sanitary Inspectors until regular selection has been made." 5. Allowing the writ petition the court gave the following directions: "In this view of the matter, the writ applacations ace a\\owed and the petitioners will continue to work as Incharge Sanitary Inspectors notwithstanding the impugned order contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 16. The Respondent Corporation is directed to permit the petitioners to continue as Incharge Sanitary Inspectors on the same terms and conditions on which they have been working prior to their reversion till regular selection is made. The Respondent Corporation is further directed to frame appropriate rules regarding recruitment including eligibility qualifications for the posts of Sanitary Inspector keeping in view the fact that Inoculators are also qualified to undertake training for Sanitary Inspector and persons like the petitioners have been efficiently discharging their duties as Sanitary Inspectors, and hold regular selection within six months from the date of receipt or production of a certified copy of this order." 6. It appears that the Corporation and the other respondents in that case failed to comply with the courts direction and the petitioner and others then filed M.J.C.No 2894 of 1995, for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the concerned authorities. In that case the Administrator of the Corporation and the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar appeared before the court on 25.4.1997 and stated that the directions given by the court will be implemented within a month from that date. The M.J.C. was, thus disposed of after recording their statements. 7. No further developments in the matter, however, took place for more than two years and on 30.7.1999 an order was issued giving promotion to Kishori Mahto (the other petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3965 of 1993). No order was passed in respect of the petitioner till he retired on 31.1.1998 and finally he was allowed promotion by the impugned order issued on 7.1.2000. 8. Mr. No order was passed in respect of the petitioner till he retired on 31.1.1998 and finally he was allowed promotion by the impugned order issued on 7.1.2000. 8. Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was issued in gross violation of the directions given by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3965 of 1993 and the undertaking given by the respondent authorities to this court in M.J.C. No. 2894 of 1995. Further, the impugned order was completely unreasonable in so far as it purported to give promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of the issuance of the order because persons juniors to him were allowed promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector from earlier dates. He, therefore, made a prayer before the court to direct the competent authority in the Corporation to shift back the petitioners promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector and to make the promotion effective from the date on which persons junior to him were promoted on the post. 9. On notice being issued counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the Corporation. In the first counter affidavit the Corporation took the curious stand that the impugned order, dated 7.1.2000 was passed in great haste under the threat of contempt; that no benefit will accrue to the petitioner on the basis of that order because the petitioner had already retired and the order was, therefore, futile and of no consequences. The Corporation therefore decided to rescind that order and to that end another order was issued on 7.3.2002 (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit) cancelling the impugned order dated 7.1.2000. It was sought to be explained that other than Kishori Mahto no one else being junior to the petitioner was given promotion as Sanitary Inspector. 10. The petitioner then filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, pointing out that the statements in the Corporations counter affidavit were a bundle of contradictions and were contrary to the Corporations own records. 11. The Corporation answered the petitioners rejoinder by another affidavit which is titled as "Reply to Rejoinder to the counter filed on behalf of the petitioner". 11. The Corporation answered the petitioners rejoinder by another affidavit which is titled as "Reply to Rejoinder to the counter filed on behalf of the petitioner". In its second affidavit the Corporation shifted from its earlier position and took the stand that in the combined gradation list of Sanitary Inspectors and Inoculators, finally published in 2001 only 21 persons were eligible for promotion and they were all senior to the petitioners (See paragraph 5). It was further stated in paragraph 6 that the petitioner belonged to the cadre of Vaccinators and on the basis of the policy decision taken in the year 1997 all Vaccinators en bloc were put below the Sanitary Supervisors in the combined gradation list. The cancellation of the order dated 7.1.2000 by which the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector from the date of the issuance of the order was justified on the ground that on the basis of his position in the combined gradation list, the petitioner was not eligible for that promotion. However, the combined gradation list was not produced before the court. 12. The petitioner filed yet another affidavit in reply to the second affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. In this affidavit it was stated by the petitioner that the post of Inoculator did not belong to the cadre of Vaccinators. In this affidavit he also brought on record the combined gradation list, dated 14.12.2002. This completely falsifies the averment made on behalf of the Corporation that in the combined gradation list the Vaccinators were en bloc placed below the Sanitary Supervisors. From the combined gradation list it is evident that the date of appointment was made the basis of seniority. The only Inoculator in that list is Kishori Mahto who on the basis of his date of appointment is placed at serial no.3, above a large number of Sanitory Supervisors who were appointed after him. 13. This court is, therefore, sorry to record that in this case the Corporation is not only changing its stand from time to time but it has also made averments before this court which prima facie appear to be contrary to the record. 14. From the combined gradation list it is evident that had it been prepared while the petitioner was in service, the petitioner would have found a position above Kishori Mahto as he was undeniably senior to Kishori Mahto. 14. From the combined gradation list it is evident that had it been prepared while the petitioner was in service, the petitioner would have found a position above Kishori Mahto as he was undeniably senior to Kishori Mahto. 15. In the writ petition the petitioner has given a number of instances (from paragraphs 12 to 14) where persons junior to him, on the basis of their dates of appointment, were given promotion to the post of Sanitory Inspector from earlier dates 16. It is true that all those persons were Sanitory Supervisors (excepting Birendra Prasad Singh who though an Animal Catcher was promoted as Sanitory Inspector on the basis of an order passed by this court). But their being Sanitory Supervisor will be of no relevance and they will not be entitled to any precedence in promotion to the post of Sanitory Inspector in view of the judgment of this court in C.WJ.C. No. 3965 of 1993, the relevant passage from which has been quoted earlier in this judgment. 17. This court therefore, comes to the inescapable conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Sanitory Inspector from the date, persons junior to him, on the basis of their dates of joining the service, were promoted to that post. 18. The petitioner has brought on record, as Annexures 7 & 8 respectively two orders dated 24.2.1988 and 14.6.1995 by which a number of employees were promoted as Sanitary Inspectors. The promotees covered by Annexures 7 & 8 worked as Sanitary Supervisors but on the basis of their dates of entering the service they were undeniably junior to the petitioner. It will not be proper to give promotion to the petitioner from a date prior to 26.8.1994, the date of the judgment in his earlier writ petition. He is, therefore, held entitled to promotion with effect from 14.6.1995. 19. The Corporation is accordingly directed to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 14.6.1995 when a number of persons, junior to him got promotion as Sanitory Inspectors. Necessary orders in this regard must be issued within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the Administrator. The differential salary from 14.6.1995 to 31.1.1998 must also be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of issuance of the promotion order. Necessary orders in this regard must be issued within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the Administrator. The differential salary from 14.6.1995 to 31.1.1998 must also be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of issuance of the promotion order. The retiral benefits must also be redetermined, taking into account his promotion as Sanitory Inspector w.e.f. 14.6.1995. 20. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.