Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (for short 'Me. SEB') dated 24.06.2009 that "the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Executive Engineer till his retirement from Board's service on 31.08.2005, therefore, he will not be entitled to any financial benefit, while the other 4(four) Assistant Executive Engineers will be entitled to financial benefits w.e.f. the respective date(s) they joined the post of Executive Engineer on promotion" and also for a direction to the respondents to release all consequential service benefits to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002 i.e. the date of his promotion in the rank of Executive Engineer, which had been granted to the other four similarly situated Executive Engineers. 2. Heard Mr. S Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. KS Kynjing, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. SM Surong, learned counsel for the respondents-Board. 3. The concise fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is noted for decision of the issue which calls for consideration in the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a diploma holder. The Assam State Electricity Board was independently functioning before Meghalaya attained Statehood and only in the year 1975, the State Electricity Board became Meghalaya State Electricity Board (Me. SEB) and the petitioner became employee of the Me. SEB from 1995. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer on 31.12.1990 along with some degree holders (Assistant Executive Engineer). On 18.06.1997, a provisional gradation list of Assistant Executive Engineers wherein, the petitioner and 4(four) others diploma holders were placed below those degree holders Assistant Executive Engineers promoted in the year 1990, was published. The petitioner also filed several representations against the gradation list of the Assistant Executive Engineers published on 18.06.1997. While the said representations of the petitioner against the said gradation list of the Assistant Executive Engineers published on 18.06.1997 were pending, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 30.05.2002 on the basis of the said gradation list wherein, the petitioner and 4 (four) others diploma holders were en bloc below the degree holders Assistant Executive Engineers and as a result, the petitioner and 4(four) others diploma holders Assistant Executive Engineers were not promoted to the post of Executive Engineers. 5. 5. The petitioner and 4(four) others diploma holders Assistant Executive Engineers filed a joint writ petition being WP(C) No. 261(SH)2002 challenging the said order for promoting the degree holders Assistant Executive Engineers to the post of Executive Engineer. The said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 216(SH)2002 was finally allowed vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2004 wherein, the respondents had been directed to take appropriate steps to consider the cases of the petitioners (petitioners of WP(C) No. 261(SH)2002) for promotion after fixation of their positions at appropriate positions to the rank of Executive Engineer from the date on which their juniors were promoted and also further directed that the respondent authorities shall re-fix the seniority of the petitioners and the private respondents i.e. Assistant Executive Engineers (degree holders) in the cadres of Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of Clause 6(a) of the regulations and after passing such order, their cases shall be considered for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer by holding appropriate DPC under Clause 39 of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board Employees (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1996. In the said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28.04.2008, it is made clear that if the petitioners are found eligible to be promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer, their such promotions would be related back to the date on which their juniors were promoted granting only notional seniority and for the purpose of financial benefits, they would entitle to such financial benefits from the date of joining to the promoted post. 6. It is stated that in pursuance of the directions of the Gauhati High Court in the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 261(SH)2002, the seniority list of the Assistant Executive Engineers were re-fixed on 19.06.2008. In that seniority list, the petitioner and 4(four) others (diploma holders) Assistant Executive Engineers were placed above the Assistant Executive Engineers (degree holders), who were appointed in the same year. After fixation of the seniority list duly constituted DPC was held on 25.06.2008 to consider the case of the petitioner and 4(four) others for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer; and the petitioner and 4(four) others were recommended for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical). By an order dated 01.07.2008 of the Me. After fixation of the seniority list duly constituted DPC was held on 25.06.2008 to consider the case of the petitioner and 4(four) others for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer; and the petitioner and 4(four) others were recommended for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical). By an order dated 01.07.2008 of the Me. SEB, it had been clarified that petitioner and 4(four) others Assistant Executive Engineers (diploma holders) were promoted against the upgraded post of Executive Engineer(Elect) with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002 for the purpose of notional seniority only. The said order dated 01.07.2008 is available at Annexure-D to the writ petition and it reads as follows:- MEGHALAYA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Lumjingshai, Short Road, Shillong-793001 Phone No. 2590196 (O) Ext-150 ....................................................................... No. BDS/PER 1/78/2008/84 1st July, 2008. "Office Order" Pursuant to the Hon'ble GHC (Shillong Bench) judgment dt. 28.04.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 261(SH)2002, and on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee MeSEB dt. 25th June, 2008, the following promoted AEE's whose seniority have been provisionally re-fixed vide O/O No. BDS/PER 1/78/2008/18 dt. The 19th June/2008 are promoted to the rank of EE (Elect) against the upgraded post of EE (Elect) notified vide O/o No. BDS/PER/1/78/2008/64 dt. 1st July, 2008 with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002 for the purpose of notional seniority only. 1. Shri. D Bhattacharjee (Retired) 2. Shri. A Ghose 3. Shri. J Das 4. P Sinha and 5. B.S.R. Chyne However, for the purpose of financial benefit they will be entitled to such benefit from the date of joining the promoted post of EE (EL) as duly recommended by the DPC held on 4.9.2003 and 23.5.2005, vide O/O BDS/PER/promotion/172/98/Pt/8(G)(H) and (1) dt. 25.9.2003 and O/BDS/PER/Promotion 172/98/Pt/99 (E) dt. 23.5.2005 respectively. Sd/-illegible Member Secretary 1st July, 2008 7. The petitioner had already retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.2005. However, by the said order of the Me. SEB dated 01.07.2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Elect) with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002. But, by the said order dated 01.07.2008, no financial benefit was granted to the petitioner, even if he had been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002. Mr. However, by the said order of the Me. SEB dated 01.07.2008, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Elect) with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002. But, by the said order dated 01.07.2008, no financial benefit was granted to the petitioner, even if he had been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002. Mr. KS Kynjing, learned senior counsel appearing the respondents-Board by referring to the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28.04.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 261(SH)2002 contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to any financial benefit inasmuch as, the Gauhati High Court clearly stated in the said judgment and order dated 28.04.2008, the promotions of the petitioner and 4(four) others to the post of Executive Engineer would be related back to the date on which their juniors were promoted granting only notional seniority and for the purpose of financial benefits, they would entitle to such financial benefits from the date of joining to the promoted post. In the present case, as the petitioner had already retired on superannuation on 31.08.2005, the petitioner may not be able to join the promoted post even after the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 30.05.2002. 8. In the present case, the question calls for consideration is what would be the benefit of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 30.05.2002. The benefit available to the petitioner may be to the extent of getting higher amount of pension inasmuch as, the petitioner shall deem to have been retired on superannuation from service in the post of Executive Engineer on 31.08.2005 inasmuch as, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer from 30.05.2002. As the said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28.04.2008 had attained finality, this Court is not considering the financial benefit in the way of arrear pay in the scale of the Executive Engineer to the petitioner. In the given case, the petitioner shall deem to have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 30.05.2002. No doubt, the amount of pension is to be calculated under Rule 39 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which is applicable to the employees of Me. SEB. In the given case, the petitioner shall deem to have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 30.05.2002. No doubt, the amount of pension is to be calculated under Rule 39 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which is applicable to the employees of Me. SEB. The expression "emoluments" means pay as defined in Rule 9(21) of the Fundamental Rules (F.R.) under Rule 28 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Under Rule 9(21)(a) of the F.R. "Pay" means the amount drawn monthly by a Govt. servant. Therefore, the expression "emoluments" mentioned in Rule 28 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules means the pay of the Govt. servant. In the present case, because of legal friction of the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28.04.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 261(SH)2002 wherein, it is clearly held that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer would be from the date of promotion of his juniors and consequence order of the Me. SEB dated 01.07.2008, the petitioner shall deem to have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 30.05.2002. Over and above, the said order of the Me. SEB dated 01.07.2008 clearly stated that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from 30.05.2002. Therefore, because of legal friction of the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 of the Gauhati High Court and also the said order of the Me. SEB dated 01.07.2008, the pay of the petitioner at the time of his retirement on superannuation on 31.08.2005 would be the pay of the promoted post of Executive Engineer. 9. In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to calculate the amount of pension of the petitioner by taking the emoluments of the petitioner under Rule 28 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules as his pay as Executive Engineer at the time of retirement on superannuation on 31.08.2005. This Court in the peculiar circumstances also made clear that the average emoluments mentioned in Rule 29 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules would also be the same as an emoluments defined in Rule 28 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules because of the legal friction of the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 28.04.2008 and also the said order of the Me. SEB dated 01.07.2008. So as to enable the respondents to complete the exercise as per directions of this Court, it is left to the respondents, if necessary, may resort to Rule 92 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules. However, it is made clear that the whole exercise should be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 10. Writ petition is allowed only to the extent indicated above.