ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the quashment of the judgment dated 30th April, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, at Ranchi in O.A. No. 266 of 2002 with further quashment of office orders dated 27.11.2001 and 1.3.2002 by which the writ petitioner was reverted to substantive post of J.E.-II in the scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- and the respondents be directed to pay all retiral benefits to the petitioner by treating him as Chief Estimator in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- till the date of his superannuation on 31.5.2002. 2. The brief fact of the case of the writ petitioner was that he was initially appointed on 31.8.1963 under the respondents and was placed in the Construction Department under the South Eastern Railway. For his work and worth he was promoted from time to time and on February, 1978 he was promoted to the post of Head Estimator (Ad hoc) and after 9 years in the month of October, 1987 he was promoted to the post of senior Estimator in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- by C.P.O., G.R.C. and accordingly he Joined the post. The contents of the writ petition further bear the fact that the petitioner was impanelled by C.P.O./G.R.C. vide letter dated 1.1.1986 for post of senior Estimator though on ad hoc basis. Again by the letter dated 12.8.1998 his lien was fixed in Bilaspur Division as senior Estimator, but subsequently a number of selections were held for the post of Head Estimator, J.E.-I and Chief Estimator from time to time but he was neither called for any selection either for Head Estimator or for the post of Chief Estimator, though he was eligible and qualified for the same post. Yet he was promoted to the post of Head Estimator on ad hoc basis and was paid the regular salary meant for such post since February, 1978. In that manner consequent upon his promotions he was paid to the regular scales meant for the promotional post and was allowed to work independently with all consequential benefits. But to utter dismay, his juniors viz. In that manner consequent upon his promotions he was paid to the regular scales meant for the promotional post and was allowed to work independently with all consequential benefits. But to utter dismay, his juniors viz. Sri S.K. Sinha, Sri Ram Lal Jalheria, Sri I.P. Patel, Sri R.K. Pathak & Sri Chaudhary were promoted on the regular post in the open line in superssession of his rights and claims on the post of Head Estimator and Senior Estimator when it was due to him. The petitioners made several representations including on 16.9.1991 before the Senior D.P.O. (Engg.) S.E. Railway, Bilaspur for his selection on the regular basis but of no avail. It was further stated that the petitioner and one Sri K. Gangaraju were denied the opportunity to be promoted as Chief Estimator on the regular basis. He was never called for suitability test which highly prejudiced him and the other selected for promotion were juniors to him except at SI. No. 1 but during the pendency of his representation for consideration to the post of Chief Estimator, he was reverted to the post of Head Estimator in the scale of Rs. 5500-9500/- from the post of Chief Estimator in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-and he was repatriated to B.S.P. Division, relieved on 9.2.2002 and ultimately joined the post at Bilaspur. Immediately after his joining, he was again reverted to the post of senior Estimator in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 6.12.2001 stating that he was deprived of the selections and due promotions in open line organization whereas his juniors were regularly promoted upto the post of Chief Estimator in much higher scale. The petitioner then moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna at Circuit Bench, Ranchi for the quashment of the reversion order. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing both the parties dismissed the O.A. of the petitioner by observing that though the respondents wanted to help him but the applicant refused to cooperate inasmuch as he did not submit himself for suitability test and since the applicant did not qualify in the suitability test, he could not be held eligible for higher promotion and the petitioner now therefore, had no locus to raise these grievances after his superannuation. 4. Mrs. 4. Mrs. Pal, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, advancing her argument, submitted that the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Bilaspur by his letter dated 1.1.1997 called upon three officiating Head Estimators to appear for their suitability test for the post of Head Estimator in the higher scale but the petitioner though senior to all the three was denied such opportunity for his regular promotion and Shri R.L. Jalaria, Shri Charan Singh and Shri R.K. Pathak though were juniors to him, were promoted on the regular post of Head Estimator, Senior Estimator and again on Chief Estimator in succession. 5. The learned Counsel contended that by the another office order dated 10.6.1997, eight officiating Chief Estimator were called upon to appear for their promotion for the post of Chief Estimator but the petitioner was never called upon to attend such test and that their promotions were considered without considering the case of the petitioner. 6. Drawing the next point, the learned Counsel exhorted that the petitioner was admittedly senior-most J.E.-II in Bilaspur Division, so he should not have been reverted, treating him surplus, ignoring the principle of "last come first go" after retaining his juniors in service. Though the name of the petitioner was found at SI. No. 8 in the panel for the post of Senior Estimator which was approved by the competent authority long back on 31.12.1985 and the approved selection list was published on 1.1.1986. Yet, the selected candidates were later on promoted on regular basis but the petitioner was denied such opportunity as his case was not considered, only because his service was transferred to construction organization under Dy. CE(C)/C.K.P. & OEN/SWR/BSP. 7. Assailing the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal Mrs. Pal submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner was duly selected by the competent selection committee long back on 31.12.1995 for his regular promotion to the post of Senior Estimator so the question did not arise for his further selection for the promotion to the post of J.E.-I which was subordinate/substantive post of Senior Estimator. He was holding the post of Chief Estimator (Ad hoc) in the grade of Rs. 6500-10500/- for long 15 years till 1st March, 2002 but his case for regular promotion was never considered though many juniors were promoted. 8. Mrs. He was holding the post of Chief Estimator (Ad hoc) in the grade of Rs. 6500-10500/- for long 15 years till 1st March, 2002 but his case for regular promotion was never considered though many juniors were promoted. 8. Mrs. Pal contended that reversion of the petitioner for consecutive two posts only two months prior to his superannuation which was due on 31.5.2002 was not only illegal but arbitrary, mala jide, discretionary and in violation of the rules of natural Justice and for that no notice was given to the petitioner before such reversion. Finally, she submitted that after long 15 years of service on the post of Chief Estimator, the petitioner had gathered much experience and qualification required for promotion and therefore, no further suitability test was required for him for his selection on the substantive post. 9. The learned Counsel contended that the illegal reversion order passed against the petitioner reduced his retiral dues which put him in irreparable loss and injury without fault of his and it resulted in great miscarriage of justice and flagrant violation of law and such reversion orders called for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had no alternative equally efficacious remedy other than to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. With reference to the contents of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, the learned Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the petitioner worked in the construction organization throughout his service career, which had no cadre of its own and in such organization the petitioner enjoyed out of turn promotion though as a lien holder he was not entitled to in open line section. The service of the petitioner was reported to open line section where he held lien till February/March, 2002 and that after he joined in open line of S.E., Railway in Bilaspur Division his name was interpolated in seniority list at appropriate place to extend him promotional benefits. The petitioner was called upon to appear in the suitability test for consideration of his promotion but he did not appear and therefore, the promotional benefits could not be extended to him and he was made to retire as Senior Estimator in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-fixing his pay at Rs. 8,000/- only. The petitioner was called upon to appear in the suitability test for consideration of his promotion but he did not appear and therefore, the promotional benefits could not be extended to him and he was made to retire as Senior Estimator in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-fixing his pay at Rs. 8,000/- only. It was only because of the laches on the part of the petitioner no promotional benefits could be extended as per existing rule and for that the respondents cannot be blamed as he remained all along in ex-cadre post in the construction organization where he enjoyed out of turn promotion to the post of Head Estimator, Senior Estimator and Chief Estimator (Ad hoc). 11. Advancing his argument on the point of law, the learned Counsel for the Union of India submitted that as per Rule F.R. 22(IV) of Indian Railway Establishment Code (I.R.E.C.), the promotional post en-Joyed in an ex-cadre post like construction organization by an employee cannot claim such enjoyment in the cadre posts in open line organization. It was incorrect to say that the pay scale of Senior Estimator was Rs. 6500-10500/- rather the scale was factually Rs. 5000-8000/-. The petitioner admitted that his lien was fixed in Bilaspur Division in open line organization as Senior Estimator and he served throughout in the construction organization and for such reason his name was not included in the seniority list published from time to time in open line organization in Bilaspur Division where he was holding his lien. The petitioner did never approach Bilaspur Division to include his name in the seniority list only for the reasons that he was holding lien there. 12. Learned counsel pointed out that after he Joined in open line organization in Bilaspur Division in the month of March, 2002, the petitioner was called for suitability test only with a view to extend him promotional benefits but he did not avail. 12. Learned counsel pointed out that after he Joined in open line organization in Bilaspur Division in the month of March, 2002, the petitioner was called for suitability test only with a view to extend him promotional benefits but he did not avail. Whatsoever promotions were given to the petitioner, it were in construction organization, an ex-cadre post and all such promotions enjoyed in ex-cadre posts were out of turn promotions which did not confer any benefit to an employee when repatriated to cadre post as per Rule F.R. 22(IV) of I.R.E.C. Admittedly, the petitioner availed all the promotions on ad hoc basis in the ex-cadre posts and not on regular basis and therefore, he cannot claim the benefits whatsoever he enjoyed there on his repatriation to his cadre post in open line, 13. The learned Counsel for the Union of India clarified that the alleged representation of the petitioner dated 16.9.1999 was never received by the concerned respondent-authority otherwise corrective measures could have been taken and that his case for promotion could not be considered because his name did not appear on the seniority list. The petitioner retired on 31.5.2001 and before that he was asked to appear in the suitability test but he did not appear and hence he retired from the post of Senior Estimator in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- on the basis of out of turn promotion on ad hoc basis on the ex-cadre post in the construction organization to which he was not entitled to as per extant rules and he was rightly reverted to his substantive post after his repatriation. The action of the respondents were unconformity with extant rules. 14. Finally, our attention was drawn that on completion of the project work the petitioner was shown surplus by the construction organization and not by open line where he was holding lien. He was repatriated to Bilaspur Division where he was on lien and he was aware of the future hazard of working in an ex- cadre post like construction organization where out of turn promotions were given to him but after repatriation to lien post he was reverted to the substantive post in the organization. He was repatriated to Bilaspur Division where he was on lien and he was aware of the future hazard of working in an ex- cadre post like construction organization where out of turn promotions were given to him but after repatriation to lien post he was reverted to the substantive post in the organization. The action of the respondents were in accordance with existing rules, therefore, justified which did not call for interference and the writ petition may be dismissed. 15. Upon conscious consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the petitioner admittedly, worked and enjoyed promotions in the ex- cadre of construction organization and according to the provisions of Rule 22(IV) of I.R.E.C., promotional post availed in ex-cadre post like construction organization cannot be extended to such employee/employees on his patriation in the cadre post in open line organization. According to the prevailing rules, we find that passing of suitability test, in the circumstances, was sine qua non for promotion. Though the petitioner was called upon to appear for suitability test but he did not appear for the reasons best known to him. The respondents have explained that for such reason the petitioner was denied promotions to the higher post and no benefit of ex-cadre post could be given to him. 16. While dismissing the O.S. No. 266 of 2002 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna with Circuit Bench at Ranchi observed: The learned Counsel of the applicant has pointed out that the respondents wanted to help the applicant but the applicant refused to co-operate inasmuch as he did not submit himself for suitability test. In view of the fact that the applicant did not qualify in the suitability test, he cannot be held eligible for higher promotion. As pointed out earlier, the full details about his juniors having been promoted have not been made available to us. In any case, the applicant cannot raise this grievance now after his retirement. He should have been vigilant to prosecute his remedies as and when cause of action arose. 17. Yet, the learned Counsel for the Union of India admitted that the petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- on his out of turn promotion on ad hoc basis on the ex- cadre post but on repatriation the petitioner was reverted to the post of Estimator in the scale of pay of Rs. 17. Yet, the learned Counsel for the Union of India admitted that the petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- on his out of turn promotion on ad hoc basis on the ex- cadre post but on repatriation the petitioner was reverted to the post of Estimator in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000/- as per extant rules on his substantive post. Even pay protection was not given to him by the respondents by ignoring the fact that he served in the Construction Department under the South Eastern Railway soon after his appointment on 31.8.1963 and for his work and worth he was promoted for time to time. The respondents did not deny the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Head Estimator in the year 1978 and after 9 years he was promoted to the post of Senior Estimator (ad hoc) in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- in the ex-cadre post but on his repatriation in the year 2002 he was reverted to the much lower post of Senior Estimator in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- and no pay protection was given to him in spite of his long tenure in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. 18. In the similar situation, the Apex Court in Bhadei Rai v. Union of India and Ors. observed: In the case of Indra Pal Yadav (supra) this Court held that since promotion from Group C to Group D was ad hoc, the order of reversion to the post in parent department cannot be questioned. This Court, however, held that although the order of reversion from promoted post in project to substantive post in regular line is unquestionable, the appellant, in any case, is entitled to pay protection. 19. We find that the aforesaid proposition of law is squarely applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of that, this writ petition is partly allowed by modifying the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna with its Ranchi Bench and the impugned administrative orders with the direction that the petitioners pay which he had last drawn before his repatriation on the ex-cadre post of Senior Estimator in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- shall be protected. 20. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above limited to the protection of pay of the petitioner Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty. No order as to costs. 6500-10500/- shall be protected. 20. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above limited to the protection of pay of the petitioner Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty. No order as to costs. M.Y. Eqbal, J. 21. I agree.