JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.: - Heard Sri Parmanand Sharma, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for a certiorari quashing the order dated 23.3.2009 by which the representation of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Senior Assistant has been rejected and for a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors have been promoted i.e. 17.12.2008 with all consequential benefits. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30th May, 2009 as such the relief sought for quashing the order dated 23.3.2009 is no more effective relief. However, the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of notional promotion from 17.12.2008 is required to be considered. 4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 6.2.1967 in the Agriculture Department whereas one Ausaf Ahmad was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk on 14.9.1968 and was posted in a different district. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk on 29.12.1987 while Ausaf Ahmad was promoted as Senior Clerk on 23.5.1972 before publication of U.P. Clerical Service Regulation, 1983, which were applicable to entire employees of the cadre in U.P. w.e.f. 1983. Subsequently in exercise of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India the State Government of of U.P. framed U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). In the explanation to Rule 6 it has been clarified that if from the feeding cadre a junior person is promoted earlier than the senior person, then after the promotion of the senior person on the promotional post he will be senior on the promotional post. The petitioner claims that on the promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Clerk on 29.12.1987 the petitioner has become senior to Ausaf Ahmad in the cadre of Senior Clerk in view of the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules. Ausaf Ahmad and others were promoted as Senior Assistant by order dated 17.12.2008 but promotion to the petitioner has been denied. The petitioner filed his representation for promoting him on the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 17.12.2008 but his representation was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.3.2009. Ausaf Ahmad and others were promoted as Senior Assistant by order dated 17.12.2008 but promotion to the petitioner has been denied. The petitioner filed his representation for promoting him on the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 17.12.2008 but his representation was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.3.2009. In the impugned order it has been stated that as prior to 1983 the seniority list was maintained district wise, accordingly, parity in promotion on the basis of promotion of Ausaf Ahmad, who was posted in the different district cannot be claimed by the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules, on being promoted on the post of Senior Clerk on 29.12.1987 the petitioner has become senior to Ausaf Ahamad, accordingly, he was also liable to be promoted on the post of Senior Assistant on 17.12.2008 but his claim has wrongly been rejected by the respondents. 6. In the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition the same reply has been given that as the petitioner was posted in a different district and Ausaf Ahmad was posted in a different district as such the parity in seniority cannot be claimed by the petitioner as Auasaf Ahmad was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk on 23.5.1972. 7. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. 8. In Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules, it has been clearly mentioned that if from the feeding cadre a senior person is promoted after the promotion of a junior person then on promotion of the senior person on a later date he will be senior in the promotional cadre.. In view of the Explanation appended to Rule 6 of the Rules, the petitioner has become senior to Ausaf Ahmad on 29.12.1987 i.e. from the date of his promotion and he was also entitled for being considered and promoted as Senior Assistant along with Ausaf Ahmad on 17.12.2008. Thus, the promotion to the petitioner has illegally been denied, accordingly, it is suitable that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to give monetary benefit to the petitioner by granting notional promotion w.e.f. 17.12.008 i.e. the date when his juniors were given promotion. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Thus, the promotion to the petitioner has illegally been denied, accordingly, it is suitable that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to give monetary benefit to the petitioner by granting notional promotion w.e.f. 17.12.008 i.e. the date when his juniors were given promotion. 9. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to give monetary benefit as well as other consequential benefits of promotional pay scale as well revised pay scale treating him to have been promoted on the post of Senior Assistant on 17.12.2008. The arrears will be worked out within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the appropriate authority. The Pension Payment Order may also be corrected accordingly.