Judgment :- (ELIPE DHARMA RAO) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 29.08.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.307 of 2010, wherein the original application, which was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the letters dated 02.11.2009 and 10.12.2009 issued by the fourth petitioner herein thereby cancelling the pay fixed in favour of the first respondent as per office memorandum dated 22.07.2009 and rejecting his request for pensionary benefits on the basis of the fixation of pay in the promoted post, was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the first respondent as per the orders of the Government of India in G.I., Department of Pen. & P.W., O.M.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 11.12.2008, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they never issued any alert notice for selection process to the first respondent, who was appointed as Khalasi at Signal and Telecommunication Workshop, Podanur, on 23.02.1973, for the post of Senior Technician, since it is not a selection post and the said post was only a non-selection post and it is filled based on the assessing suitability by perusing the service records, confidential reports etc. It is also the case of the petitioners that the first respondent along with two other persons was found suitable for ad hoc promotion to the post of Senior Technician/M&T and among the two, one person is senior and the other person is junior to the first respondent and vide letter dated 16.07.2009, they were found suitable for the aforesaid post and the first respondent was promoted as Senior Technician on ad hoc basis against the leave vacancy for 42 days from the date of shouldering higher responsibility, subject to the condition that the promotion will cease from the date when the employees, who were on leave, resume duty or on completion of 42 days, whichever is earlier, as per office order dated 18.07.2009 and along with him, his senior, one Mr.P.Angusamy, was promoted as Senior Technician and consequent on shouldering the higher responsibility as Senior Technician, the first respondents pay was fixed at Rs.9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs.4200/- with effect from 18.07.2009, as per order dated 22.07.2009 and on completion of only 14 days, he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2009. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the settlement papers of the first respondent were sent to the Senior Accounts and Financial Advisor, vide letter dated 30.06.2009, and since the first respondent was promoted on ad hoc basis on 18.07.2009, his pensionary benefits were revised and the same were sent to the Senior Accounts and Financial Advisor, as per letter dated 27.07.2009, and the said officer, while passing the settlement, took into account the pay of the first respondent in the lower grade only on the ground that he has not completed the minimum 21 days of officiating period in the higher grade on promotion on adhoc basis and he has completed only 14 days in the promotional post. It is also the case of the petitioners that based on the objection taken by the Senior Account and Financial Advisor as well as the Railway Boards letter dated 16.09.1969, the pay fixed in favour of the first respondent as Senior Technician vide memorandum dated 22.07.2009 was cancelled, thereby holding the pay as on 18.07.2009 as Technician Grade I and the same was communicated to the first respondent as per memorandum dated 02.11.2009, against which, the first respondent as submitted a representation on 12.11.2009 seeking fixation of pay in the higher post, but the same was rejected, vide letter dated 10.12.2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letters dated 02.11.2009 and 10.12.2009, the first respondent has filed O.A.No.307 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the original application and directed the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein, to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the applicant, who is the first respondent herein, as per the orders of the Government of India in G.I., Department of Pen. & P.W., O.M.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 11.12.2008, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire materials placed on record. 6. On going through the entire materials placed on record, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have rejected the claim of the first respondent merely on the basis of the letter of the Board, which states that, if a Railway servant, after his promotion to a higher post, does not put in 22 days of continuous officiating service in the higher post on account of his proceeding on leave or reporting sick, he is not deemed to have discharged the full duties and responsibilities of the higher post and therefore, such short periods of officiating are not recognised as effective officiating and the Railway servant is paid only the pay admissible in the lower grade. A reading of the above said letter indicates that a Railway servant, after promotion to a higher post, if not able to put in 22 days of continuous officiating service on account of his proceeding on leave or reporting sick, is not deemed to have discharged his full duties and responsibilities in the higher post and therefore, he is not entitled for payment in the higher post. 7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that in the present case, the first respondent, in view of the result of the suitable test held on 15.07.2009, was found suitable to be promoted as Senior Technician Grade I, by order dated 16.07.2009, and though he was promoted to the said post, vide order dated 18.07.2009, and his pay was fixed in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, as per order dated 22.07.2009, the benefits were not paid to him and on 31.07.2009, he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 8. It is also seen from the perusal of the records that after the retirement of the first respondent, in view of the objection taken by the the Senior Account and Financial Advisor while considering his settlement, the Railway Board has passed an order on 02.11.2009 thereby cancelling the pay fixed in faovur of the first respondent in the promotion post, as per the letter, dated 22.07.2009, and the Railway Board, has passed another order on 10.12.2009 thereby rejecting the request made by the first respondent seeking fixation of his pay in the higher post and aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the first respondent has filed O.A.No.307 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 9. It is further seen from the perusal of the records that the Railway Board has opposed the relief sought for by the first respondent in the original application by relying on the letter of the Board dated 16.09.1969, according to which, if a Railway servant, after his promotion to a higher post, does not put in 22 days of continuous officiating service in the higher post in the place of an employee proceeding on leave or reporting sick, he is not deemed to have discharged the full duties and responsibilities of the higher post and whereas, in this case, the first respondent has rendered only 14 days of service in the promotion post. 10. 10. It is also seen from the perusal of the records that the Tribunal, while interpreting the promotion as well as the fixation of pay scale of the first respondent at the time of promotion, held that the impugned order dated 02.11.2009 and 10.12.2009 are bad in law and accordingly, set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents therein to pay the applicant the salary of Rs.12060/- + Rs.4200/-= Rs.16,260/- with effect from 18.07.2009 till date of his superannuation on 31.07.2009 and further directed the respondents therein to grant pensionary benefits to the applicant as per the Official Memorandum of the Government of India, dated 11.12.2008, based on which, the applicant would be eligible to draw 50% of the emoluments as pension, against which, the present writ petition is filed. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the if a Railway servant, after his promotion to a higher post, does not put in 22 days of continuous officiating service in the higher post in the place of an employee proceeding on leave or reporting sick, he is not deemed to have discharged the full duties and responsibilities of the higher post. Secondly it is contended that the Railway employees those who were worked on short period of officiating are not recognized as effective officiating and the Railway servant is paid only the pay admissible in the lower grade. Finally it is contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the first respondent officiated in the higher post of Senior Technician only for a period of 14 days, after passing the suitability test on 15.07.2009. 12. We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the petitioners in cancelling the pay of the first respondent fixed in the promotional post and rejecting the request made by him for fixation of pay in the higher post, by applying the Boards letter, dated 16.09.1969, which is applicable in the case of a Railway servant, who was promoted to a higher post, and if he is not able to discharge the responsibilities and functions of the abovesaid higher post for about 22 days of continuous officiating service in the place of an employee proceeding on leave or reporting sick, he is not eligible for the higher pay fixed or attached to the said post. 13. 13. On the other hand, Chapter II, Section B, Rule 216 A (i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Volume I), which governs the promotion of Group C Staff of the Railway Board and which deals with the ad hoc promotion against selection and non-selection posts, reads as follows:- "Ad hoc promotions should be avoided as far as possible both in selection and non-selection posts, and where they are found incapable and have to be made in the exigency of service, they should be resorted to only sparingly and only for a short duration of 3 to 4 months. The ad hoc promotion should be ordered only from amongst seniormost suitable staff. As a rule, a junior should not be promoted ignoring his senior." 14. After going through the aforesaid provision of law, it is made clear that a caution was given only to the authorities to avoid to make ad hoc promotions as far as possible both for selection and non-selection posts, and in the circumstances, where they are found incapable and have to be made in the exigency of service, they should be resorted to only sparingly and only for a short duration of 3 to 4 months, the ad hoc promotion should be ordered only from amongst the seniormost suitable staff and as a rule, a junior should not be promoted ignoring his senior. 15. As seen from the order, dated 16.07.2009 of the Board, after passing the suitability test, which was held on 15.07.2009, the first respondent along with two others persons was found suitable to be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis and as per order dated 18.07.2009, the first respondent and his senior were promoted to the post of Senior Technician. As seen from the order, dated 16.07.2009 of the Board, after passing the suitability test, which was held on 15.07.2009, the first respondent along with two others persons was found suitable to be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis and as per order dated 18.07.2009, the first respondent and his senior were promoted to the post of Senior Technician. While applying the above said rule to the case of the first respondent, we are of the considered opinion that though he discharged his duties and responsibilities for a short period of 14 days in the promotional post, the caution is only against the authority, who is going to promote a seniormost person on the basis of ad hoc promotion against selection and non-selection sparingly to meet the exigency of the administration of service for a short duration of three or four months and hence, there is no embargo fixed debarring the railway servants, who are promoted to a higher post and discharged the duties and responsibilities in the said post for a short period, from getting the pay scale fixed for the promotional post. 16. It is further seen from the proceedings of the Board, dated 18.07.2009, that while giving promotion to the first respondent and his senior to the post of Senior Technician as per the result of the suitability test dated 16.07.2009, on ad hoc basis, against the leave vacancy for 42 days from the date of shouldering higher responsibilities, it was also indicated in the said letter that the said promotion would cease from the date, the employees, who are on leave resume duty or on completion of 42 days, whichever is earlier. But, without completing the above said period of 42 days for resumption of duty by the employee, who was gone on leave, in the natural way of attaining the age of superannuation, the first respondent retired from service. 17. Therefore, on perusal of the proceedings of the Railway Board, dated 16.07.2009 and 18.07.2009 read with Rule 216 A(i) of the aforesaid Rule, it is made clear that the petitioners cannot deny the pay or pensionary benefits as per law for which the first respondent is entitled to. 17. Therefore, on perusal of the proceedings of the Railway Board, dated 16.07.2009 and 18.07.2009 read with Rule 216 A(i) of the aforesaid Rule, it is made clear that the petitioners cannot deny the pay or pensionary benefits as per law for which the first respondent is entitled to. As we have already held that there is no term fixed under Rule 216 A (i) of the aforesaid Rules of the Board on the employees, who were promoted on ad hoc basis against a selection and non-selection post, but on the other hand, the Rule cautioned the authority, who is going to promote a Railway servant to a limited period of three to four months to meet the exigencies of service and also considering the seniority, suitability and eligibility, but not to consider the junior for promotion ignoring the senior. Further, both the proceedings of the Board and the Rule referred to above are applicable in two different circumstances and the Boards letter cannot be applicable to the case of the first respondent, whereas he is entitled to get benefits as per Rule 216A(i) of the aforesaid Rules of the Railway Board. 18. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the petitioners in rejecting the claim made by the first respondent by applying the proceedings of the Railway Board, which is contrary to Rule 216 A(i) of the aforesaid Rules, is illegal and hence, the orders passed by the petitioners dated 02.11.2009 and 10.12.2009 are liable to be set aside and they are, accordingly, set aside. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.