Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined service as an Assistant in the Public Health Department on 04.01.1963. The petitioner while in service underwent Sanitary Inspector course in the year 1965 and on completion of Sanitary Inspector course, he was posted as Field Assistant from 17.09.1966 till 16.04.1967. The petitioner was promoted as Health Assistant in Kanyakumari District on 17.04.1967 and thereafter promoted as Health Inspector on 03.02.1968. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. It is submitted that though the petitioner was duly qualified to hold the post, but in the year 1975, a condition was imposed to pass second class language (Tamil) test, though there was no such condition stipulated at the time of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner passed Tamil test in the year 1975 and thereafter, was declared to have cleared his probation. 3. It is submitted that some of the similarly situated employees being aggrieved by the action of the State Government in stipulating a condition that the employees should pass Tamil test for grant of increment and to clear probation, filed W.P.No.2116 of 1988. The writ petition was allowed by this Court. 4. In view of the decision of this Court holding that the condition of passing language test (Tamil) for grant of increment and to clear probation is bad in law, the petitioner filed representation with the respondents for grant of similar relief. 5. The representation of the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was assigned seniority at Sl.No.429-A in the cadre of Health Inspector. However, consequential benefits arising out of the change in seniority, was not granted to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner filed another representation for grant of consequential benefits, but the representation was rejected only on the ground that petitioner had superannuated from service. 7. The action of the respondents in declining the relief of consequential benefits, merely on the ground that the petitioner had superannuated from service, cannot be sustained in law. The respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong, in not extending consequential benefits to the petitioner after change of seniority, to undo the unjustice done to him. 8. It was the obligation of the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner if eligible, by giving him notional promotion because of his retirement. The respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong, in not extending consequential benefits to the petitioner after change of seniority, to undo the unjustice done to him. 8. It was the obligation of the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner if eligible, by giving him notional promotion because of his retirement. The action of the respondents in denying consequential benefits being arbitrary, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date of his immediate junior was promoted, if found eligible, and grant him notional promotion with consequential benefits including revision of pension in accordance with law. No costs.