( 1 ) BY means of this appeal, the judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 13/12/1999 has been impugned raising a grievance that the High Court is in error in not issuing a direction for making the payment of difference of the arrears of salary in respect of the promotion post to which the appellant was entitled as also directed by the learned Single Judge. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case for the purpose of considering the present controversy are that promotion to the post in supervisory B grade was due in the establishment of the respondent Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. The criterion for promotion as provided in Guideline 7 of the Guidelines governing conditions of the service of the employees of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. , for the post carrying scale of pay of Rs. 1500. 00-2000. 00 and below is seniority-cum-fitness. It appears that promotion exercise was undertaken and Respondent 2, namely, Lakshmipathi Raju was promoted, by order dated 25/6/1992. The abovesaid promotion was challenged by the present appellant Mohd. Ahmed and Smt Indumati Ganesh by filing Writ Petition No. 806 of 1992. Their case has been that the appellant Mohd. Ahmed was the seniormost employee in the zone of consideration for promotion to the supervisory B grade and Petitioner 2 in the writ petition, namely, Smt Indumati Ganesh was the next in seniority but both were denied promotion and superseded, promoting Shri Lakshmipathi Raju adopting the criterion of merit against the Guidelines. The contention of the writ petitioners was accepted and the writ petition was avowed by order dated 27/10/1995. The contention of the writ petitioners was accepted and the writ petition was avowed by order dated 27/10/1995. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition gave the following directions: " (7) directing the 1st respondent to consider the claims of the 2nd petitioner for appointment to the post of Personal Secretary to Vice-Chairman and Managing Director from the date on which the 2nd respondent was promoted, if necessary by creating a supernumerary post or consider her claims for appointment to an equivalent post which carries all the perks; (2) to pay the arrears of difference in salary to both the petitioners from the date on which the 2nd respondent was appointed as Personal Secretary to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director; and (3) the respondent has to give effect to all the above directions within one month from the date of receipt of the order. " ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. went up in appeal before the Division Bench. The said appeal was disposed of, but while doing so, the present appellant was mentioned to have died. On coming to know about the said mistake the impugned order was passed mentioning therein that the present appellant had retired from service. But it is pointed out that rest of the judgment remained the same. The Division Bench, in passing the impugned order, totally ignored to take note of the claim of the appellant so much so, in the operative part of the order, no such observation has been made allowing or refusing any benefit to the appellant or upsetting the direction given by the Single Judge for payment of arrears of salary. ( 4 ) IT may be noted that the appellant retired from service sometime in May 1995 i. e. during the pendency of the writ petition. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, had given a specific direction for payment of difference of salary to the present appellant, being the seniormost amongst parties. ( 4 ) IT may be noted that the appellant retired from service sometime in May 1995 i. e. during the pendency of the writ petition. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, had given a specific direction for payment of difference of salary to the present appellant, being the seniormost amongst parties. The Division Bench has only modified the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in relation to creation of supernumerary post in respect of Lakshmipathi Raju instead of Indumati Ganesh and it was provided that in case Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. has decided to give benefit to Lakshmipathi Raju as Personal Secretary, it may be done by creating a supernumerary post for him, but the regular post of Personal Secretary has to be given strictly in accordance with the rule of seniority-cum-fitness for which Indumati Ganesh was then only eligible. It is further observed for payment of difference of salary to Indumati Ganesh, that she would not be made to suffer for no fault of hers, for which the Chairman alone was responsible. ( 5 ) WE thus find that while disposing of the appeal, nothing was said about the present appellant, though the same principle was equally rather more applicable to him as the appellant was even senior to Indumati Ganesh but she alone was given the benefit. He was very much in service when the promotion was given to Lakshmipathi Raju on 25/6/1992. He continued in service and retired only on 31/5/1995. The learned Single Judge had rendered the judgment on 27/10/1995 giving the benefit of the arrears of difference of pay to the appellant which, in our view, could not be faulted with. We feel that if the benefit allowed to the appellant by the learned Single Judge was meant to be disallowed by the Division Bench, it should have specifically dealt with that matter. We feel that if the benefit allowed to the appellant by the learned Single Judge was meant to be disallowed by the Division Bench, it should have specifically dealt with that matter. It is true that he could not be given promotion on the date the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench as then Smt Indumati Ganesh was the seniormost person available for promotion, by reason of the fact that the appellant had retired on 31/5/1995 but it would not mean that he could be deprived of the difference of salary during the period he was denied the benefit of promotion i. e. from 25/6/1992 till the date of retirement. That direction was issued by the learned Single Judge and on the reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for making the benefit available to Smt Indumati Ganesh, there would be no reason to deny the said benefit to the appellant. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mention that the respondent sugar factory had filed the SLP against the judgment of the Division Bench which has been dismissed. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion held above, we allow the appeal and provide that as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the present appellant, Mohd. Ahmed, shall be paid difference of salary by Respondent 1 at the earliest. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench stands modified accordingly to the extent mentioned above.