ORDER : SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against that part of the order, dated 13.03.2014, passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 476 of 2012, whereby the writ petitioner-appellant’s prayer for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, with effect from 1988, was rejected. 2. The appellant, in the writ application, made two prayers, namely, (i) for quashing of the order, dated 30.09.2011, passed by respondent No. 3, the Deputy General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, whereby the representation of the appellant for promotion, with effect from the date his juniors had been promoted, was rejected, and (ii) for quashing of the letter, dated 08.06.2011, of the Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Patna (respondent No. 4), by which, while withdrawing the dismissal of the appellant from service, the period, from the date of his dismissal till the date of his superannuation, was treated as not spent on duty denying, thus, the wages for the intervening period. 3. The writ Court allowed the second relief holding that the appellant would be entitled to the wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his superannuation. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned single Judge took the view that as the dismissal of the appellant from service was solely based on his conviction in a criminal prosecution, the order of the dismissal has necessarily to be set aside as he was subsequently acquitted, vide judgment and order, dated 22.07.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2002 (S.J.). However, the first prayer of the appellant that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Manager from the date his juniors were promoted, in the year 1988, was declined, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 4. We find that the learned single Judge, while declining the prayer, observed that the matter stood concluded by order, dated 02.05.2011, of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 1141 of 1998, wherein the Division Bench observed that no cause of action had survived inasmuch as the appellant stood promoted, on ad hoc basis, during the pendency of the appeal. 5. 5. The appellant has challenged, as already indicated above, that part of the impugned order, whereby the learned single Judge has declined to interfere with the order, dated 30.09.2011, passed by respondent No. 3, denying to the writ petitioner-appellant his claim for promotion with effect from the date his juniors received promotion. 6. Before we deal with the rival submissions of the parties on the issue, it would be relevant to notice the facts of the case, in brief. The appellant, initially, joined Union Co-operative Insurance Society Limited, which was a private insurance company. In 1971, all the insurance companies were nationalized and a General Insurance Company was constituted with four subsidiaries, which included United India Insurance Company Limited. The Union Co-operative Insurance Society Limited, of which the appellant was an employee, merged with the United India Insurance Company Limited on same terms and conditions as per the merger scheme issued, in the year 1973, by the Government of India. In the year 1975, the Company framed the General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and other terms and conditions of service of Officers) Scheme, 1975 (in short, “the Scheme”) in order to regulate the service conditions of its employees. The appellant was categorized as an Additional Administrative Officer. On 17.11.1979, the appellant was promoted to the grade of Administrative Officer. As per the Scheme, an Administrative Officer becomes eligible for promotion as Assistant Manager after three years of service. It is the case of the appellant that some of his juniors got promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in the year 1982-83; whereas he got promotion to the rank of Assistant Manager on 20.04.1985. Similarly, accordingly to the writ petitioner-appellant, an Assistant Manager becomes eligible for promotion after he puts in three years in the same grade. The appellant submits that after completing three years of service in the grade of Assistant Manager, he, too, became eligible for promotion to the rank of Deputy Manager in 1988. 7. The writ petitioner-appellant submits that in the seniority list of the Assistant Managers, prepared on 01.01.1989, he was at serial No. 37; whereas one V.S. Chopra was placed at serial No. 80. By 10.05.1989, the Assistant Managers, upto serial No. 92 in the seniority list, were promoted to the grade of Deputy Manager. 7. The writ petitioner-appellant submits that in the seniority list of the Assistant Managers, prepared on 01.01.1989, he was at serial No. 37; whereas one V.S. Chopra was placed at serial No. 80. By 10.05.1989, the Assistant Managers, upto serial No. 92 in the seniority list, were promoted to the grade of Deputy Manager. Again, in the seniority list prepared on 01.01.1990, the name of the appellant figured at serial No. 24; whereas the persons, upto serial number 155, were, according to the appellant, promoted to the grade of Deputy Manager. Again, it is the case of the appellant, though his name had figured at serial number 19 in the seniority list of Assistant Manager prepared on 01.01.1991, while he was not promoted to the grade of Deputy Manager, persons up to serial number 26 were promoted. 8. The appellant, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, filed C.W.J.C. No. 6912 of 1992, which was disposed of by order, dated 16.11.1994, directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager from the first stage, i.e., the date from which his juniors got promotion. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon the respondents for depriving the appellant of his legitimate rights of promotion all these years. Against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 16.11.1994, the Insurance Company preferred Letters Patent Appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 170 of 1994, which was dismissed on 16.11.1995. 9. As the orders of this Court were not complied with, the appellant filed M.J.C. No. 1110 of 1995 for drawing contempt proceedings against the respondents. The respondents, in the said proceeding, contended that on consideration, the appellant was not found fit for promotion. The said M.J.C. application was dismissed by order, dated 15.12.1995, with liberty to the appellant that he may challenge the action of the respondents by filing a writ petition. 10. It transpires from the records that, in the meantime, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant and a criminal prosecution was also launched against him. 11. The said M.J.C. application was dismissed by order, dated 15.12.1995, with liberty to the appellant that he may challenge the action of the respondents by filing a writ petition. 10. It transpires from the records that, in the meantime, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant and a criminal prosecution was also launched against him. 11. The appellant filed another writ application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11533 of 1994, challenging the initiation of departmental proceeding, which was disposed of, on 19.03.1996, with a direction that the respondent authorities would act strictly in terms of the judgment and order, dated 16.11.1995, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 170 of 1994. 12. As no decision was taken on the representation of the appellant for his promotion, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 5802 of 1995. During the pendency of the said writ application, the appellant was informed about rejection of his claim for promotion, vide order contained in letter, dated 30.07.1996. The appellant filed an amendment petition, in the said C.W.J.C. No. 5802 of 1995, challenging the order, dated 30.07.1996. The writ application was finally disposed of, on 10.09.1998, remanding the matter to the promotional authority for reconsideration of the appellant’s claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager by treating the promotional post as a selection post. The learned single Judge, taking note of the decision, in Jagathigowda C.N. and others v. Chairman, Cauvery Gramina Bank, reported in (1996) 9 SCC 677 , further directed the respondents to consider the totality of service records of the appellant, when promotion was based on seniority-cum-merit. The relevant observations, made in Jagathigowda C.N. (supra), at paragraph 8, and relied upon by the learned single Judge, are reproduced below: “It is settled proposition of law that even while making promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit the totality of the service record of the officer concerned has to be taken into consideration. The performance appraisal forms are maintained primarily for the purpose that the same are taken into consideration when the person concerned is considered for promotion to the higher rank. The High Court, with respect, was not justified in holding that the performance appraisal could not be taken into consideration by the Directors’ Committee while considering the officers for promotion to the higher rank.” 13. The High Court, with respect, was not justified in holding that the performance appraisal could not be taken into consideration by the Directors’ Committee while considering the officers for promotion to the higher rank.” 13. It is relevant to state that the appellant’s ad hoc promotion to the grade of Deputy Manager was withdrawn and he was reverted to the grade of Assistant Manager vide order, dated 24.12.2002, on the ground of his conviction in the criminal prosecution bearing Special Case No.41 of 1987/R.C. No.15 of 1987. Subsequently, vide order, dated 03.01.2003, issued by the respondent No. 3, the writ petitioner-appellant was dismissed from service also on the same ground. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal, vide C.W.J.C. No. 1301 of 2003, which was dismissed on 03.12.2003. 14. In the meantime, in 1998 itself, both the appellant as well as the respondent Company, being aggrieved by the order, dated 10.09.1998, passed by the learned single Judge, in C.W.J.C. No. 5802 of 1995, had preferred Letters Patent Appeals, bearing L.P.A. No. 1141 of 1998 and L.P.A. No.1144 of 1998 respectively. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, by order, dated 02.05.2011, observing, at paragraph 4, that no cause of action had survived. Paragraph 3 and 4, which would be relevant in the context, are quoted here-in-below: “3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant has been promoted on ad-hoc basis but subsequently the promotion has been withdrawn because of the fact that a criminal case was pending against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been acquitted very recently by the High Court in the said criminal appeal. In view of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal appeal, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant had been promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Deputy Manager by treating the post as selection post during the pendency of appeal but it has been subsequently withdrawn. We make it clear that the main grievance of the learned counsel to treat the post as of the `selection post` even though it is a promotional post as the concerned Rules are not made available to this court to arrive at a decision, whether the particular post falls under the category of `promotional post` or `selection post` this court is of the opinion that the case of the appellant has to be treated as per Rules governing such promotion. 4. In our opinion no cause of action survives. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.” 15. We find that the Division Bench noticed that appellant was finally acquitted in the criminal case and that the appellant had been promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Deputy Manager from 20.05.1998 and in light of the direction of this Court, the Deputy General Manager, respondent No. 3, on examining the appellant’s case, held that the writ petitioner-appellant would be entitled to promotion to higher grade with effect from May, 1998, as per the promotion policy, which existed at the relevant point of time. The respondent No. 3 rejected the appellant’s claim for promotion to the grade of Deputy Manager with effect from 1988. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order granting him promotion from only 1998, challenged the same in the writ application, which was rejected. 16. The case of the appellant is that he was denied promotion solely on the ground that a criminal case, bearing Special Case No.41 of 1987/R.C. No.15 of 1987, was instituted, wherein charge-sheet was submitted against him, though he was not named in the First Information Report. As the appellant was subsequently convicted in the criminal case, on 17.08.2002, by the Special Judge, Patna, a major punishment of dismissal was imposed upon him. The conviction, ultimately, was set aside by this Court, vide judgment and order, dated 22.07.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2002 (S.J.). The appellant submits that consequent to his acquittal, the period from the date of his dismissal from service, i.e., 02.01.2003, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.08.2004, has, now, been counted as period spent on duty, but he has still been denied promotion with effect from 1988, the date promotion had become due to him. The appellant submits that consequent to his acquittal, the period from the date of his dismissal from service, i.e., 02.01.2003, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.08.2004, has, now, been counted as period spent on duty, but he has still been denied promotion with effect from 1988, the date promotion had become due to him. The appellant states that the criminal case was the sole ground for withholding his promotion and, now, finally, when he has been absolved of the same on merits, he would be entitled to all benefits as if the criminal case had not been instituted. 17. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Company submits that the appellant was granted promotion on ad hoc basis with effect from 20.05.1998 and the same was regularized from the said date vide letter, dated 08.06.2011. The Division Bench of this Court has, vide order, dated 02.05.2011, passed in L.P.A. No. 1141 of 1998, while dismissing the appeal, observed that no cause of action had survived. The appellant has, thus, acquiesced himself to the said order, which has attained finality, and, hence, the appellant cannot turn around and seek promotion from an earlier date. The reasoning of the learned counsel for the respondent Company found favour with the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge observed that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the service record of the eligible candidates was required to be considered in the case of Jagathigowda C.N. (supra). There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law that while making promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the totality of service record of the officer concerned has to be taken into consideration. 18. As a general rule, irrespective of the fact, whether the post is a selection post or not, the respondents can very well take into consideration the performance appraisal of a person being considered for promotion. In the present case, we find that the respondents, vide letter, dated 08.06.2011 (annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ application), themselves stated that ad hoc promotion offered earlier stood restored on regular basis with effect from 20.05.1998. As the respondents have themselves restored the promotion of appellant on regular basis, it would become due from the date the appellant’s juniors were granted promotion. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. As the respondents have themselves restored the promotion of appellant on regular basis, it would become due from the date the appellant’s juniors were granted promotion. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. That part of the order, dated 13.03.2014, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 476 of 2012, whereby the learned single Judge has declined to quash the order, dated 30.09.2011, contained in Annexure-19 to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to make the appellant’s date of promotion with effect from the date his juniors received promotion. 20. No order as to costs.