ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE RESPONDENT WAS A JUNIOR ENGINEER IN THE SERVICE OF THE APPELLANT BOARD. THE NEXT POST OF PROMOTION FROM THE POST OF JUNIOR ENGINEER IS ASSISTANT ENGINEER. ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE PROMOTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN 1989. HOWEVER, SUCH PROMOTION WAS REFUSED TO HIM ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NOT TAKEN THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION. THE RESPONDENT TOOK THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION SUCCESSFULLY ON 20-3-1990. THEREAFTER, HE HAD BEEN CONTINUOUSLY SUBMITTING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE APPELLANT FOR PROMOTION AS AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN 1990 ONE SUMESH BANSAL WAS APPOINTED AS AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND HIS APPOINTMENT WAS MADE SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF A CANDIDATE WHO MAY BE APPOINTED IN THE REGULAR COURSE. THE APPELLANT DID NOT HOWEVER REVERT SUMESH BANSAL NOR DID THEY PROMOTE THE RESPONDENT AS THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER. IN 1994 SUMESH BANSAL FILED A SUIT IN WHICH HE ASKED FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE APPELLANT FROM REVERTING HIM TO THE POST OF JUNIOR ENGINEER. THE RESPONDENT WAS A PARTY TO THE SUIT. AN INTERIM INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED IN THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR BY SUMESH BANSAL. THE UPSHOT OF THIS INTERIM ORDER WAS THAT THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT WAS OCCUPIED BY THE SAID SUMESH BANSAL. IN ALL THE PROCEEDINGS FILED BY SUMESH BANSAL THE APPELLANT HAD CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE STAND THAT THE POST AGAINST WHICH SUMESH BANSAL WAS TEMPORARILY APPOINTED WAS RESERVED FOR A SCHEDULED CASTE CANDIDATE WHICH THE RESPONDENT WAS. SUMESH BANSALS SUIT WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED ON 21-10-2000. HOWEVER, HE WAS CONFIRMED IN THE POST BY THE APPELLANT. 3. CONSEQUENTLY THE RESPONDENT FILED A WRIT PETITION IN 2000 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA. THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION BY DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT ON MERITS. THE APPELLANT PASSED AN ORDER ON 26-9-2002 PROMOTING THE RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT FROM 14-12-2001 INSTEAD OF 20-3-1990 BEING THE DATE WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAD PASSED THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION. 4. THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION BY DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT ON MERITS. THE APPELLANT PASSED AN ORDER ON 26-9-2002 PROMOTING THE RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT FROM 14-12-2001 INSTEAD OF 20-3-1990 BEING THE DATE WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAD PASSED THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION. 4. A SECOND WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT CLAIMING NOTIONAL PROMOTION WITH EFFECT FROM 20-3-1990 AND ALSO FOR PAYMENT OF ALL BACK WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT 18% FROM THE DATE FROM WHICH BACK WAGES WERE DUE UNTIL ACTUAL PAYMENT. 5. THE WRIT PETITION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN IMPUGNED BEFORE US. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO PROMOTION WITH EFFECT FROM 20-3-1990 WHEN HE BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION. 6. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTIONAL PROMOTION OR BACK WAGES FOR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO 2001 AS THE NUMBER OF POSTS HAD BEEN REDUCED BY WAY OF AN AMENDMENT OF THE RULES. THE SUBMISSION IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE REDUCTION OF THE POSTS CERTAINLY DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE POST TO WHICH THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO BE APPOINTED HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SUMESH BANSAL WAS CONTINUING TO HOLD THAT POST. THE HIGH COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED THE QUESTION OF REDUCTION OF POST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE CREATION OF A SUPERNUMERARY POST SINCE SUMESH BANSAL HAD BEEN CONTINUING IN SERVICE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND PERMITTED THAT ALL ARREARS OF SALARY SHOULD BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH 9% INTEREST WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WE HAD LIMITED THE NOTICE ONLY TO THE QUESTION OF ARREARS OF PAY. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY IT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 7. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF ARREARS OF PAY IS CONCERNED, EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS AN INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION OPERATING IN SUMESH BANSALS SUIT RESTRAINING THE APPELLANT FROM REVERTING SUMESH BANSAL, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT. 7. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF ARREARS OF PAY IS CONCERNED, EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS AN INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION OPERATING IN SUMESH BANSALS SUIT RESTRAINING THE APPELLANT FROM REVERTING SUMESH BANSAL, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT WILL BE ENTITLED TO ARREARS OF PAY WITH EFFECT FROM 20-3-1990 UP TO THE DATE OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN THE SUIT WHICH IS 19-5-1994 AND AGAIN FROM 21-10-2000 (WHEN SUMESH BANSALS SUIT WAS DISMISSED) UPTIL 4-10-2002 AFTER WHICH DATE ADMITTEDLY THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PAID HIS F WAGES AT THE PAY SCALE APPLICABLE TO AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER. 8. THE HIGH COURTS ORDER IS ALSO MODIFIED INSOFAR AS IT HAS DIRECTED PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT 9%. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO BE PAID THE ENTIRE ARREARS OF SALARY AS INDICATED BY US WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. IF SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT MADE WITHIN FOUR WEEKS, INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10% PER ANNUM WILL BE PAID ON THE ARREARS FROM THE DUE DATES TILL PAYMENT. 9. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF.