1. Pursuant to Govt. order No.07-SKIMS of 2009 dated 4 May, 2009, sanction has been accorded to the appointment of petitioner against the post of Associate Professor in the grade of Rs.(14300-400-18300) in CVTS notionally from 24.6.2002 against the post advertised vide Advertisement Notice No.3 of 2001 dated 28.7.2001. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the word "notional" runs contrary to the judgment delivered in LPA No.118 and 119/2005 as the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits as well. The operative part of the judgment delivered in LPA No.118 and 119/2005 captioned Dr. Ghulam Nabi Lone v. SKIMS & Ors. reads as under: "In case marks awarded by the Apical Selection Committee along with the marks awarded on appellant’s five publications bring the total number of his marks to more than 50% in aggregate, the respondents are directed to appoint him to the post of Associate Professor, CVTS from the date when he would have been otherwise appointed pursuant to advertisement notice dated... (second notice) with consequential benefits." 3. In terms of the said direction, case of the petitioner has been considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. The consideration order was unfavourable to the petitioner which prompted him to file one more petition SWP No. 1060/2007, same came to be decided on 2.2.2008. Para 6, which is operative part of the judgment is quoted here-under: "For all that has been discussed above, I feel that the respondent Institute has only reported a half backed compliance of the Division Bench directions resulting in an apparently prejudicial evaluation of petitioner’s case running counter to the spirit of Division Bench judgment in view whereof the impugned compliance report is quashed with a direction to respondent Institute to undertake and conduct a fresh exercise in strict accordance with directions of Division Bench, as quoted above, within a maximum period of ten weeks from now. In the alternative and to end the controversy, respondent Institute could also consider petitioner for notional placement in the post of Associate Professor from the date mentioned in the Division Bench order as has admittedly been done in case of one Dr. Syed Mushtaq Ahmad under respondent Institute’s order No.25-SKIMS of 2005 dated 25.5.2005. Record be returned to Mr. Magray." 4. Syed Mushtaq Ahmad under respondent Institute’s order No.25-SKIMS of 2005 dated 25.5.2005. Record be returned to Mr. Magray." 4. In terms of the directions issued, the respondent Institute was to undertake and conduct fresh exercise strictly in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench as issued in LPA No.118 and 119/2005. When matter remained pending for some time, the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 14/2006. In terms of order dated 16.4.2009 passed thereon by the Division Bench, counsel for the respondents was asked to inform the Court as to why the court order has not been complied with. When on 15.5.2009, said contempt petition was taken up, it was stated that the court order stand complied. Petitioner has been appointed as Associate professor in CVTS notionally from June 24, 2002 against the post advertised on 28.7.2001. While disposing of said contempt petition, the Division Bench opined as under: "The principal order of the Court did not utter a word about seniority. It only considered whether or not the appellant before the Court was entitled to be appointed. In such view of the matter, if we issue any direction as regards seniority, that would be adding something more in the principal order which we cannot do. However, inasmuch as the order specifically declares that the appellant has been appointed from June 24, 2002, though notionally, we hope and expect that, without the appellant initiating any further litigation, he would be given whatever legal benefits he is entitled to by reason of such appointment." 5. The position of the order impugned has been noticed in the order dated 15.5.2009, in addition thereto when SWP No. 1060/2007 was disposed of, in the operative part as quoted hereinabove, it has been opined that in the alternative and to end the controversy, respondent Institute could also consider petitioner for notional placement in the post of Associate Professor from the date mentioned in the Division Bench order as has admittedly been done in case of one Dr. Syed Mushtaq Ahmad under respondent Institute’s order No.25-SKlMS of 2005 dated 25.5.2005. Picking the thread there from, the respondents have issued the impugned order wherein specific reference is made to the orders of the Division Bench rendered in LPA Nos.118 and 119/2005 coupled with orders rendered in SWP No. 1060/2007 and contempt petition No. 14/2006. 6. Syed Mushtaq Ahmad under respondent Institute’s order No.25-SKlMS of 2005 dated 25.5.2005. Picking the thread there from, the respondents have issued the impugned order wherein specific reference is made to the orders of the Division Bench rendered in LPA Nos.118 and 119/2005 coupled with orders rendered in SWP No. 1060/2007 and contempt petition No. 14/2006. 6. The claim of the petitioner that the word "notional" as occur in the order impugned runs contrary to the judgment rendered in LPA Nos.118 and 119/2005. 7. The contention has got substance for two reasons, first in the order passed in SWP No. 1060/2007, the operative part of which is quoted hereinabove, the respondents were, in alternative, given chance to consider the petitioner for notional placement in the post of Associate Professor so as to put an end to the litigation. Second in the order dated 15.5.2009 passed in contempt petition No. 14/2006 by the Division Bench, it would not have been recorded that the order (impugned) specifically declares that the petitioner has been appointed from June 24, 2002 though notionally but whatever legal benefits petitioner shall be entitled to shall be given to him by reason of such appointment, which has been opined in view of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner therein to the effect that the order does not talk of the seniority of the petitioner to be counted from June 24th, 2002. That would indicate that the seniority position of the petitioner was to be considered and given effect based on the appointment with effect from June 24th, 2002. That situation too has been complied as the petitioner has been placed at serial No. 14 instead of serial No.30 in the combined seniority of Associate Professors. In addition to that seniority position of the petitioner in the combined seniority of Additional Professors has also been taken care of. In connection thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an order dated 16.4.2010 issued by the respondent Institute wherein objections have been invited for re-fixation of seniority of the petitioner, where-under he is to figure at serial No.29 instead of serial No.33 in the list of Additional Professors. 8. In connection thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an order dated 16.4.2010 issued by the respondent Institute wherein objections have been invited for re-fixation of seniority of the petitioner, where-under he is to figure at serial No.29 instead of serial No.33 in the list of Additional Professors. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the judgment rendered in SWP No. 1060/2007 wherein it was opined that the notional promotion can also be considered, has attained finality, but same has been observed only to put an end to the litigation but in effect it is Division Bench judgment which has to be implemented in toto, therefore, same cannot be taken advantage of by the respondents so as to modify the judgment rendered in LPA No. 118/2005. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that when the promotion has been given from a particular date, there is no point/logic in making it notional when denial of promotion at relevant time was due to the faults and wrong assessments attributable to the respondents based on which promotion was denied to the petitioner. It is only with the intervention of the Court that the matter had been re-examined and set right and petitioner found fit for promotion with effect from 24th June, 2002. In support of this contention, learned counsel has rightly placed reliance on the judgment Nb. Subedar (SKT) Jasbir Singh v. Union of India, rendered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 19th of November, 2004. Para 12 of the said judgment shall be quite relevant to be quoted here-under:- "12. In the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Nb. Subedar was not accepted only because he had an average in his ACR for 1999 and also he did not possess the requisite second regimental annual confidential report. We find from the records that the aforesaid second regimental annual confidential report could not be earned by the petitioner due to administrative reasons but for no fault on the part of the petitioner. It is a settled law that in normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are affected, all benefits flowing there from, including monetary benefits, must be granted to an officer who has been denied such promotion. It is a settled law that in normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are affected, all benefits flowing there from, including monetary benefits, must be granted to an officer who has been denied such promotion. It is true that there could be cases where grant of notional promotion should not legitimately give rise to a valid claim for payment of arrears of salary either on the ground that the officer did not actually hold the post at the relevant time or otherwise. The said principles cannot be applied to the facts of the present case because a wrong was done to the petitioner due to the administrative reasons for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. A wrong had been committed by not posting the petitioner which would have enabled him to earn the second regimental annual confidential report and also by recording conflicting reports in his annual confidential reports for 1999 for which the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. The respondents accepted the wrong done inasmuch as waiver was subsequently granted of having two regimental annual confidential reports and remarks against the petitioner in the confidential report for 1999 were also set aside by the order of the Director General of Artillery. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner be entitled to not only his seniority in the post of Nb. Subedar from the date his batch mates were promoted but we also hold that the petitioner shall also be entitled to receive arrears, pay and allowances in the said post from the said date." 10. The law as has been laid down will also apply to the facts of the present case as admittedly no fault is attributable to the petitioner. If there would have been any blame on him, he could be deprived of getting monetary benefits with effect from date promotion has been ordered, when in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of the petitioner in LPA No. 118/2005, the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor from the due date with consequential benefits, therefore, to say that the petitioners promotion shall be notional is absolutely contrary to the judgment. Therefore, the order impugned to the extent of incorporation of word "notional" is not in consonance with the judgment, therefore, to that extent i.e. to the extent of word "notional" shall stand quashed. Therefore, the order impugned to the extent of incorporation of word "notional" is not in consonance with the judgment, therefore, to that extent i.e. to the extent of word "notional" shall stand quashed. Disposed of as above.