Judgment : Heard Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jichkar, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Manohar, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3. Nobody appears for LRs of respondent No. 4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that he is senior to Respondent No. 4 (now deceased) and for that purpose his date of recruitment i.e. 20.06.1961 must only be looked into. Secondly, his claim is, he is entitled to promotion as Senior Clerk with effect from 01.01.1985. The third relief is to set aside promotion of Respondent No. 4 as Assistant Superintendent with effect from 12.06.1989 and forth relief sought for is, to promote him with consequential benefits. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the services under Respondent No. 2 – District & Sessions Judge, Bhandara, as English Section Writer on 20.06.1961 and Respondent No. 4 joined as Junior Clerk on 23.06.1961. On 25.09.1961, the petitioner was also promoted as Junior Clerk and on 27.02.1970, after Departmental Enquiry, he was reverted as English Section Writer. After suffering that punishment, he was promoted again as Junior Clerk on 01.05.1973. It is also not in dispute that from 01.04.1984, two cadres viz., cadre of English Section Writers and Junior Clerks were amalgamated together. Though actual implementation as such was done in the year 1986, it has been given effect to from 01.04.1984. The petitioner as also Respondent No. 4 were then both promoted as Senior Clerk on 01.01.1985. On 16.01.1991, Respondent No. 2 issued an order giving deemed date of promotion and in that order Respondent No. 4 was given deemed date as 01.01.1985 while present petitioner was given 15.02.1986 as deemed date of promotion as Senior Clerk. On 12.06.1989, Respondent No. 4 was given further promotion as Assistant Superintendent. The present petitioner also got that promotion vide order dated 23.05.1994 with effect from 13.06.1994. The petitioner took voluntary retirement on 31.07.1997 while Respondent No. 4 retired on superannuation on 31.10.1999. Respondent No. 4 has expired on 13.03.2003. 4. After inviting attention to punishment order dated 26.02.1970, Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out the guidelines issued on 19.12.1986, after the amalgamation of two cadres and for the purpose of preparation of gradation list of Junior Clerks including in it the former Section Writers. Respondent No. 4 has expired on 13.03.2003. 4. After inviting attention to punishment order dated 26.02.1970, Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out the guidelines issued on 19.12.1986, after the amalgamation of two cadres and for the purpose of preparation of gradation list of Junior Clerks including in it the former Section Writers. He points out that the initial date of joining the service is the date for inclusion in that combined cadre and here as the petitioner had joined on 20.06.1961 i.e. prior to Respondent No. 4, he ought to have been treated as senior to Respondent No.4. It is further urged that though the order of punishment states that the petitioner has been reverted as a English Section Writer, still in the light of subsequent amalgamation and preparation of seniority list from the date of joining, there is no reversion in law. Pay scale of petitioner as section writer & of junior clerk is demonstrated to be same & reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Gopaul vs. Union of India, reported at AIR 1967 SC 1864 , particularly para 5 for said purpose. By placing reliance upon Manual of Departmental Enquiries published by Government of Maharashtra (General Administration Department), particularly clause 3.6, it is urged that an order of reduction to a lower post has to contain a clear statement specifying its period or then if it is permanent, to that effect. If it is for specified period, its effect on future increments also needs to be mentioned and if it is not so specified, after completion of such period of reversion, the Government servant stands automatically promoted (restored) to his original post and his seniority then is required to be determined depending upon whether his future increments were postponed during that period or not. In this situation, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner after the expiry of period specified in the punishment order became Junior Clerk and, therefore, on 01.01.1973, he ought to have been treated as Junior Clerk. It is urged that said promotion given to the petitioner on 01.05.1973 is, therefore, not in accordance with law. 5. In this situation, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner after the expiry of period specified in the punishment order became Junior Clerk and, therefore, on 01.01.1973, he ought to have been treated as Junior Clerk. It is urged that said promotion given to the petitioner on 01.05.1973 is, therefore, not in accordance with law. 5. To point out the judicial recognition to the initial date of appointment in the matter of seniority, our attention has been invited to the order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1989 decided on 06.11.1990 (Kanchan Ganesh Nandanwar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). In this background, the gradation list as prepared in the year 1965, in 1989 and then in 1990 are also pressed into service to show injustice done to the petitioner by not treating his date of joining as the date for the purposes of computation of his seniority. The deemed date given by order dated 16.01.1991 for the purposes of promotion to the post of Senior Clerk as 15.02.1986 is questioned in this background by pointing out that the petitioner in fact was promoted on 01.01.1985 and had worked accordingly. It is urged that at the time of his joining, the petitioner was already SSC and hence in terms of the Government communication dated 01.10.1964, his salary as English Section Writer started in scale of Rs.100/(basic) which is equivalent to the salary of a Junior Clerk. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were always having same pay scale and the petitioner was always having pay scale of the post of Junior Clerk. 6. The additional submissions filed on 13.11.2006 by the petitioner are also pressed into service to point out how there is inconsistency in the order dated 2.12.1961 and the gradation list as prepared by Respondent No. 2 for the year 1965 & 1989 insofar as respective standing of the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 is concerned. The learned counsel states that there was no reversion in law and the petitioner had always continued to receive same pay scale as that of Respondent No. 4 or any Junior Clerk and hence his seniority ought to have been fixed from the date of joining i.e. 20.06.1961 and accordingly he ought to have been given all benefits. The learned counsel states that there was no reversion in law and the petitioner had always continued to receive same pay scale as that of Respondent No. 4 or any Junior Clerk and hence his seniority ought to have been fixed from the date of joining i.e. 20.06.1961 and accordingly he ought to have been given all benefits. It is contended that Respondent No. 4 as also the petitioner were given post of Senior Clerk on 01.01.1985 and this position could not have been altered to the prejudice of the petitioner on 16.01.1991. 7. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 has urged that the petition attempts to assail the seniority list prepared in 1965 and thereafter in 1989 and 1990. The petition has been filed raising this grievance for the first time in the year 1993 and hence it is barred by latches. Our attention has been invited to the fact that in due course the petitioner was also promoted as the Assistant Superintendent on 13.06.1994 and in this situation, the question of his entitlement to benefits of that post from 12.06.1989 till 13.06.1994 could only have arisen. The learned counsel contends that on account of this delay and latches, no such relief for said period can be given. By inviting attention to the communication dated 19.12.1986, ShriManohar, learned counsel points out that said communication is only about those English Section Writers who were then converted into Junior Clerks posts due to amalgation. In other words, contention is, where on account of promotion, English Section Writers had already become Junior Clerks and were, therefore already part of that cadre, said communication or scheme has no application. Our attention in this respect has been drawn to clarification given while answering question No. 1 and in that light, the answer given to question No. 2 is also read. Emphasis is being placed on words “these Section Writers” used in later. It is further contended that answers given cannot be read as answer to any particular question and the entire communication attempts to clarify the situation which evolved due to clubbing of two unequal cadres. 8. The learned counsel states that the order of punishment dated 26.02.1970 specifically uses the word “reversion” and on that date, post of English Section Writer was in lower cadre. 8. The learned counsel states that the order of punishment dated 26.02.1970 specifically uses the word “reversion” and on that date, post of English Section Writer was in lower cadre. He further points out that though after revision, name of the petitioner was directed to be retained at Sr. No. 1 in the list of Section Writers, still he was not to be considered for promotion till 01.01.1973. According to him, therefore, the provisions of clause 3.6 of the Manual of Departmental Enquiries are not violated at all in present matter. He contends that in K. Gopaul vs. Union of India, (supra) as also the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1989, there is no question of any punishment order. He states that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the question of equivalence in the light of transfer order and Division Bench of this Court has considered date of joining for the purposes of promotion. 9. In the alternative and without prejudice, attention has been invited to an affidavit filed by Respondents No. 2 & 3 particularly para (i) to urge that in the month of April 1961, there were two vacancies of Unpaid Section Writers and both were filled in by Respondent No. 2 as per orders dated 05.04.1961 whereby the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were appointed as Unpaid Section Writers. It is pointed out that later on, the petitioner was appointed as English Section Writer on the establishment of Respondent No. 2 Court while Respondent No. 4 was appointed after the petitioner as a Junior Clerk. The learned counsel, therefore, states that the arguments advanced, ignoring the effect of punishment order, are misconceived and petition is liable to be rejected. 10. Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No. 1 adopts the arguments of Shri Manohar, learned counsel. Nobody has chosen to appear for legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No. 4. 11. The punishment order dated 26.02.1970 is not in dispute before us and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner. This order reads as under : “Shri N.N. Bawankar presently working as a Junior Clerk is hereby reverted to work as an English Section Writer. His seniority is put at Serial No. 1 in the list of the Section Writers. This order reads as under : “Shri N.N. Bawankar presently working as a Junior Clerk is hereby reverted to work as an English Section Writer. His seniority is put at Serial No. 1 in the list of the Section Writers. However, he will be considered for the promotion for the post of Junior Clerk not before 1.1.1973 provided his work during this period is found satisfactory.” 12. It is, therefore, clear that a person like the petitioner then working as Junior Clerk has been reverted to a lower post of English Section Writer. The name of the petitioner is directed to be placed at Sr. No. 1 in the seniority list of Section Writers. It is, therefore, obvious that it is reversion to a lower grade or next below cadre. The reversion is to continue till he is found fit for promotion again. That scrutiny into his fitness is postponed till 01.01.1973. In other words, though after 26.12.1970, name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 1 in English Section Writer, still he was not to be considered for promotion till 01.01.1973 and hence persons whose name appeared after him could have been considered for promotion and promoted till 01.01.1973. Thus his juniors in cadre of section writer were after 26.12.1970 permitted to supersede him in the matter of promotion. The petitioner is also not restored to his original post of Junior Clerk after 01.01.1973 automatically but he has to secure that promotion. The employer has to find his work during the period from 26.12.1970 till 01.01.1973 satisfactory. Thus, there has to be fresh consideration and if thereafter, he is found eligible, he could have been promoted. If the work was to be held not found satisfactory, promotion stood denied. It is, therefore, apparent that it is not reversion till 01.01.1973 but it is reversion till the petitioner again qualified for promotion. It is not in dispute that the petitioner accordingly qualified on 01.05.1973. Thus till 01.05.1973, petitioner earned increments only in next below cadre as english section writer and not as junior clerk. Thus para 3.6 of manual of departmental enquiries is not at all breached. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner accordingly qualified on 01.05.1973. Thus till 01.05.1973, petitioner earned increments only in next below cadre as english section writer and not as junior clerk. Thus para 3.6 of manual of departmental enquiries is not at all breached. 13. When the petitioner had joined the cadre of Junior Clerk initially on 25.09.1961 i.e. after Respondent No. 4 and in the light of impact of punishment order mentioned supra, it is clear that effort of the petitioner to compare himself with Respondent No. 4 in the matter of promotion cannot be countenanced. The said effort is being made only on strength of guidelines issued on 19.12.1986 by which the doubts entertained about the treatment to the post of English Section Writers visavis Junior Clerks have been clarified. According to Shri Sharma, the date of entry i.e. 20.06.1961, therefore, ought to have been treated as date on which the petitioner becomes Junior Clerk. According to Shri Manohar, learned counsel, the clarifications are only in relation to adjustments required to be made qua English Section Writers, who for the first time became Junior Clerk on 01.04.1984. It is not necessary for us to delve into said controversy as the said amalgamation cannot in any way wipe out the effect of order of punishment dated 26.12.1970. The petitioner had lost seniority from 26.12.1970 till 01.05.1973 and that loss cannot be viewed as condoned by this clubbing of two unequal cadres. 14. Thus viewed, it is apparent that the petitioner becomes junior to Respondent No. 4 in the cadre of Junior Clerk. It is no doubt true that both have been given further promotion as Senior Clerk on 01.01.1985, however, because of certain directives issued by the Government and the judgment dated 06.11.1990 in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1989, the dates of promotion were required to be readjusted and accordingly in the case of petitioner, though he was actually promoted on 01.01.1985, by deeming fiction, it has been directed to be presumed as if he got that promotion on 15.02.1986. The said order dated 16.01.1991 has not been expressly questioned before us and there is no prayer to quash and set it aside. Moreover, the effort here to get date 01.01.1985 as deemed date is only because of placement of Respondent No. 4 as Senior Clerk from 01.01.1985. The said order dated 16.01.1991 has not been expressly questioned before us and there is no prayer to quash and set it aside. Moreover, the effort here to get date 01.01.1985 as deemed date is only because of placement of Respondent No. 4 as Senior Clerk from 01.01.1985. As we have found that the petitioner entered the cadre as a Junior Clerk on 01.05.1973, hence he cannot compare himself with Respondent No.4. It is clear that the argument as canvassed & effort made to indirectly assail that order dated 16.01.1991 is misconceived. The order of Division Bench of this Court dated 06.11.1990 in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1989 considers a plain and simple challenge to supersession by computing seniority only on the strength of date of joining. There the Division Bench was not required to consider the issue of loss of seniority on account of reversion as a disciplinary measure. The said judgment, therefore, has no application in present facts. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Gopaul vs. Union of India (supra) considers a challenge to transfer by an incumbent who was holding the post of Head of Department. The facts show that he was transferred to another post known as Accommodation Controller and though the service conditions did not change, the Accommodation Controller was not the Head of Department. Thus only the question of status which was raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Discussion in para 5 shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that such status is irrelevant while determining the issue of equivalence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has found that in government departments there may be several posts where the juniors may enjoy a designation as Head of Department while the seniors may not have said status. It has been found that the rank in government service does not depend on the mere circumstance that the government servant, in the discharge of his duties, is given certain powers. In present case, it is clear that the order of punishment was passed on 26.12.1970 when the cadre of English Section Writer was subordinate to the cadre of Junior Clerk and the order itself specifically uses the word reversion. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, has no application. 15. In present case, it is clear that the order of punishment was passed on 26.12.1970 when the cadre of English Section Writer was subordinate to the cadre of Junior Clerk and the order itself specifically uses the word reversion. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, has no application. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to urge that as the petitioner was SSC at the time of his joining, his pay scale and pay scale of Junior Clerk was same. Our attention has been invited to communication dated 01.10.1964 sent by State Government to High Court in this respect. The communication itself shows that pay scale prescribed for English Section Writer was Rs.913130EB4170 while the pay scale of a Junior Clerk was Rs.1003130EB4170. It further mentions that pay scale of Rs. 91170 was for non-matriculate while matriculate English Section Writers were to be given the scale which would be Rs. 1003130ED4170. It is, therefore, obvious that only for matriculate persons in the cadre of English Section Writer, a different pay scale was prescribed. That does not mean that the posts were made equivalent. We, therefore, find even these arguments of learned counsel unsustainable. The present stand about reversion as ordered on 26.12.1970 again attempts to challenge that punishment order belatedly & after undergoing it i.e after acquiescing in it. The belated effort appears to spring from communication dated 26.12.1970 and its interpretation by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1305 of 1989. 16. As Respondent No. 4 wassenior to the petitioner and he got promotion as Senior Clerk prior to the petitioner, it is obvious that he also got promotion as a Assistant Superintendent prior to the petitioner. There is nothing wrong in it & petitioner can not compare himself with respondent 4. In this view of the matter, we find no case warranting any interference in the petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.