Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger in Forest Department on 01.03.1952. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 21.09.1974 in the Tamil Nadu State Forest Service. The petitioner served as Divisional Forest Officer from 12.07.1985 and as Forest Engineer, Trichy, from 20.06.1986, the post equivalent to that of District Forest Officer, in the pay scale of Assistant Conservator of Forests. 2. The next channel of promotion from post of District Forest Officer, is to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. The petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation on 31.07.1987. A charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, was served on the petitioner 51 days prior to the date of superannuation. The charges against petitioner related to the misconduct of the year 1978-1979. 3. The petitioner submits that he co-operated with the Enquiry Officer and submitted his explanation to the charge memo. The enquiry proceedings were completed on 12.07.1987, and petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.07.1987 and relieved from duty on 31.07.1987, i.e. the date of superannuation. 4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5592 of 1988, to challenge the order of suspension, as also charge memo issued to petitioner. Interim order was passed in his favour on 1988, and writ was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and renumbered as T.A.777 of 1989. 5. The order of suspension as also charge memo was quashed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and the respondents were restrained to further proceed with the departmental enquiry with directions to allow the petitioner to retire from the date of his superannuation, with all consequential benefits. 6. It is the case of petitioner, that the 1st respondent issued orders vide G.O.(3D)No.63 Environment and Forests Department, dated 22.11.1996 to implement the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, to drop the departmental proceedings. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.715 Forest and Fisheries Department dated 01.07.1997, the panel of Assistant Conservator of Forests fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests was approved, in which, four names were included, but the name of petitioner was not included in the list due to the pendency of departmental proceedings. 7. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.715 Forest and Fisheries Department dated 01.07.1997, the panel of Assistant Conservator of Forests fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests was approved, in which, four names were included, but the name of petitioner was not included in the list due to the pendency of departmental proceedings. 7. It is the submission of petitioner, that subsequent to dropping of the departmental proceedings, which was the reason for non inclusion of his name, he submitted a representation, for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion, being entitled to be appointed as Deputy Conservator of Forests with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits, including higher pensionary benefit. 8. The request of petitioner was declined, on the ground, that the immediate junior of petitioner Thiru P.A.Abdul Bari was promoted as Deputy Conservator of Forests only on 13.08.1987, by that time, the petitioner had retired. 9. It is the case of petitioner, that the petitioner, after receipt of letter, declining his request, submitted another representation, pointing out that Thiru P.A.Abdul Bari was junior in seniority, but he was shown to be senior, thus stood promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forests, with effect from 20.06.1986, the date on which the petitioner was serving by way of adhoc arrangement in his own pay scale. 10. The request of petitioner was again declined, on the ground, that the immediate junior to petitioner was given promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forests only on 03.08.1987, i.e. after attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not claim benefit of retrospective promotion notionally. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the petitioner had discharged duties on the promoted post since 12.07.1985 continuously in his own pay and that, but for the pending enquiry, his name would could have been included in the panel and given regular promotion, or in alternative, he was to be paid higher pay for the duty performed as Deputy Conservator of Forests. 12. This contention is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005. 12. This contention is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005. Whereas the petitioner is said to have performed duty as Deputy Conservator of Forests in his own pay scale in 1985 till the date of his superannuation in the year 1987 as adhoc arrangement, therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot claim salary attached to the post, which is alleged to be due in 1985. 13. As regards the prayer for notional promotion with retrospective effect is concerned, it is also devoid of any merit. The petitioner cannot claim retrospective promotion, unless it is shown, that the junior to petitioner was promoted during the service tenure of petitioner. It is only promotion of junior, which gives right to senior to claim retrospective promotion notionally. The writ petition otherwise also cannot be said to be bonafide. The petitioner succeeded in getting the charge memo quashed taking advantage of superannuation, i.e. on technical ground, and after succeeding in his prayer for retirement, now cannot seek promotion by claiming as if he was acquitted of the serious charge of misconduct. 14. No merits. Dismissed. 15. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.