JUDGMENT P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. 1) Heard Shri Shukul, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3. 2) At the time of filing this petition, the petitioners were serving as Senior Clerks under the direct control and supervision of the District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of this petition, all the petitioners have retired from service. 3) It is the case of the petitioners that they were required to discharge their services under the administrative control of the District Judge and their service conditions were governed and regulated by the provisions of the Civil Manual. In the matter of promotions and confirmations, the District Judge is required to consider certain provisions as laid down in the Civil Manual. As per the provisions of the Civil Manual, all Clerks, who pass Lower Standard Departmental Examination, should be confirmed immediately in the existing vacancies. Such confirmation should not be deferred till passing of such examination by their seniors. It is also provided in the Civil Manual that if a Clerk, who is Junior in service, has passed the Lower Standard Departmental Examination before a Clerk, who is senior in service, the Clerk junior in service should be confirmed, if there is a permanent vacancy, in preference to a Clerk senior in service, who has not passed the examination. In the Civil Manual, two examinations are prescribed, i.e. Lower Standard Departmental Examination and Higher Standard Departmental Examination. The petitioners were promoted as Senior Clerks from the posts of Junior Clerk in the year 1985 on the ground that they had passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination and the seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Clerks were bypassed as they had not passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination. According to the petitioners, promotion orders were issued to them. However, subsequently by order dated 21/3/1995, seniority of the petitioners was refixed and dates of their promotions were changed. Though the petitioners were appointed earlier, their seniority was considered from later point of time in the cadre of Senior Clerk in view of the decision given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1305/1989. However, subsequently by order dated 21/3/1995, seniority of the petitioners was refixed and dates of their promotions were changed. Though the petitioners were appointed earlier, their seniority was considered from later point of time in the cadre of Senior Clerk in view of the decision given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1305/1989. The promotions of the petitioners were, therefore, regularised in the cadre of Senior Clerk from the dates different than the original dates on which they were promoted. It is the aforesaid re-fixation of the seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk, which is impugned at the instance of the petitioners in this petition. 4) Shri Shukul, learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently submits that the impugned order dated 21/3/1995 is not sustainable in law as once the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Senior Clerk from a particular date, no amendment can be made in such promotional order subsequently and that they were entitled to retain their seniority from the date on which they were promoted to the posts of Senior Clerk. It is submitted that the decision taken by the District and Sessions Judge is contrary to law and the petitioners are entitled to protect their seniority from the date on which they were promoted as Senior Clerks. 5) Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that it is true that the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Senior Clerk earlier as compared to their seniors in the cadre of Junior Clerks on the ground that they had passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination earlier. However, in view of the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1305/1989, seniority of the petitioners was required to be re-fixed so that they could not have any march over their seniors in the matter of future promotions. It is contended that the senior employees, who had passed Lower Standard Departmental Examination, had made a grievance in this regard. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the seniority of the petitioners was corrected and petitioners cannot make any grievance in this behalf. 6) Considering the aforesaid aspects, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 6/11/1990 in Writ Petition No. 1305/1989. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the seniority of the petitioners was corrected and petitioners cannot make any grievance in this behalf. 6) Considering the aforesaid aspects, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 6/11/1990 in Writ Petition No. 1305/1989. In the said judgment dated 6/11/1990, the Division Bench of this Court had considered the question about seniority and promotion of Junior Clerks. The petitioner in that petition was a Junior Clerk, who was superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Senior Clerk on the ground that he had not passed the Higher Standard Departmental Examination, but had passed Lower Standard Departmental Examination. While allowing the said petition, the Division Bench of this Court in para (6) of the judgment has observed thus: “6) With the assistance of Counsel for both the parties, we have gone through the rules and subsequent clarifications. There is no dispute that for securing promotion to the post of Senior Clerk, the only criterion was seniority in the cadre coupled with passing of Lower Standard Departmental Examination. In view of the norms and as discussed above, the petitioner was senior in the gradation list of Junior Clerks than the respondent no.4. Moreover, he has passed the requisite examination known as Lower Standard Departmental Examination. As such, he was due and entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Clerk earlier than respondent no.4. The claim of the petitioner was denied by acting contrary to the norms as laid down. The order of refusal is patently illegal and derogatory to the norms of the Study Group. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a deemed date in the cadre of Senior Clerk showing him above the respondent no.4, who was promoted on 1/1/1985.” In view of the aforesaid decision, ultimately a decision was taken on the administrative side of the High Court to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners. 7) In our view, there is no justification in the grievance raised by the petitioners in this petition as the seniority of the petitioners was required to be re-fixed in view of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition. 7) In our view, there is no justification in the grievance raised by the petitioners in this petition as the seniority of the petitioners was required to be re-fixed in view of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition. The employees senior to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Clerk were required to be promoted and their seniority was required to be protected in view of the decision of the Division Bench and in view of the same, if any fresh order is passed re-fixing seniority of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the said order of Administration is in any manner illegal or arbitrary. Simply because the petitioners passed Higher Secondary Department Examination earlier, the same cannot be said to be a ground on the basis of which they can bypass the claim of seniors in the cadre of Junior Clerk. In a given case, even if some Junior Clerks had passed Higher Standard Departmental Examination earlier, they can get the benefit of higher promotion, but so far as fixation of seniority is concerned, they cannot claim to retain their seniority qua their seniors, if ultimately their seniors on passing such examination are promoted to the posts of Senior Clerk. 8) In any case, High Court has ultimately in compliance with the decision of the Division Bench in the earlier Writ Petition, as pointed out above, has re-fixed seniority of the petitioners and the petitioners are not reverted to the posts of Junior Clerk and their pay is also protected so far as post of Senior Clerk is concerned. Only in the matter of seniority, they are pushed down and the Senior Clerks, who have been given deemed dates of promotion, have been shown higher in the seniority list and consequently, order is passed re-fixing the seniority of the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 fairly submits that no recovery is effected in any manner from the pay scales of the petitioners on the ground that they were wrongly promoted nor any action is taken against them to revert back to the lower post except re-fixing their seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerks. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 fairly submits that no recovery is effected in any manner from the pay scales of the petitioners on the ground that they were wrongly promoted nor any action is taken against them to revert back to the lower post except re-fixing their seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerks. In view of the same, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which cannot be said to be amending the promotional order, but it can be said to be re-fixing the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Senior Clerks. We do not find any substance in the petition. It is clarified that by virtue of the promotional order, if any particular amount of pension of petitioners is fixed, no recovery shall be effected from their pensionary benefits. 9) Subject to what is stated above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.