Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 18 (TRI)

Pradip Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2016-01-27

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who has been working as the Store Keeper under the respondents No.1 and 2 from 30.04.1990 has challenged the Order dated 03.01.2007, Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition and the Order dated 06.12.2007, Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition whereby the respondents No.4 to 6 have been promoted to the post of Inspector (Food), even though they are admittedly junior to the petitioner in the grade of Store Keeper. 2. The facts are mostly admitted. A departmental proceeding was initiated by the Memorandum No.F.26(10)DF/98 dated 20.04.1998 against the petitioner. As the petitioner had initially denied the charges, a due inquiry had taken place. The inquiry officer returned his findings on 25.11.2002 to the Disciplinary Authority, the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the said inquiry report for making his representation against the findings those held him guilty. Thereafter, the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs by the order dated 27.08.2003 passed the final order which is reproduced hereunder: ORDER “Examined the representation dated 10.02.2003 of Shri Pradip Debbarma, Store Keeper submitted in response to the proposed penalty communicated vide endorsement No.F.26(10)DF/98 dated 03.01.2003 along with findings of the Inquiring Authority on the charge framed against him very carefully and sympathetically on proper application of mind. 2. I am of the considered opinion that when the records maintained by the A.O. himself reflects the shortage, question of physical verification of stock does not arise. Had there been physical verification occurred the quantity of shortage in the godown during the material period would have been more than that of shortage detected on verification of records maintained by the A.O and as a result liability of the A.O would have been swelled. 3. If the argument of the A.O as to damage of stock on account of defective godown is taken into account there should have been the accumulated damaged stock in the godown. 4. I, therefore, confirm the penalty proposed vide order dated 2.1.2003 and order for recovery of the penal amount of Rs.2,44,238.07 say Rs.2,44,238(Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Two hundred Thirty Eight) only at the monthly rate of instalment of Rs.1,400/(Rupees One thousand Four hundred) from the salary of Shri Pradip Debbarma, Store Keeper, commencing from the month of September, 2003 payable in Oct, 2003 till completion of recovery. In case the entire loss is not recovered within the service period of Shri Pradip Debbarma, StoreKeeper, the remaining balance amount may be recovered from the pensionary benefit of the incumbent. 5. The fact of imposition of penalty and recovery of the penal amount in full may be recorded in the Service Book of the incumbent under proper authentication.” 3. It is apparent that by the said order, the penalty that was imposed was for recovery of the assessed loss. It has been directed that the said amount should be recovered by instalments at Rs.1,400/per month from the salary of the petitioner from September, 2003 till completion of recovery. It has been also observed that in case the entire loss is not recovered within the service period of the petitioner, the remaining balance amount may be recovered from the pensionery benefit of the petitioner. The said order dated 27.08.2003 reached its finality. By the order dated 21.10.2000, Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition, one Shibsankar Khisha, Jr. Store Keeper, the respondent No.3 herein, was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (Food). The respondent No.3 was junior to the petitioner in the grade of the Store Keeper. Thereafter, on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) Sri Debsankar Jamatia and Sri Sri Gunaram Malsom, the respondents No.4 and 5 respectively, who were also juniors to the petitioner in the Grade of the Store Keeper were promoted on regular basis to the post of Inspector (Food) by the order dated 03.01.2007 under No.F.21(3)/DF/2006, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, when the said order dated 03.01.2007 was issued, no departmental proceeding was pending against him and as such, there cannot be any valid reason to deny the petitioner from promotion to the post of Inspector (Food). Thereafter, by another order under No.F.21(31)DF/2007 dated 06.12.2007 was issued promoting one Sri Bhuttu Debbarma, the respondent No.6 herein, to the post of Inspector (Food) again depriving the petitioner without any reason. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 03.01.2007 and 06.12.2007. The petitioner made representations on 19.01.2012 and 18.02.2012 for his promotion to the post of Inspector (Food). By the communication dated 29.02.2012 it was informed that the petitioner’s case was placed before the DPC on 01.08.2000 and 14.11.2006 and, according to the petitioner, both the DPCs kept the petitioner’s consideration for promotion under the sealed cover. The petitioner made representations on 19.01.2012 and 18.02.2012 for his promotion to the post of Inspector (Food). By the communication dated 29.02.2012 it was informed that the petitioner’s case was placed before the DPC on 01.08.2000 and 14.11.2006 and, according to the petitioner, both the DPCs kept the petitioner’s consideration for promotion under the sealed cover. By a subsequent letter dated 29.02.2012, the petitioner was informed that his case would again be placed before the DPC for consideration of his promotion to the post of Inspector (Food). The relevant part of the letter dated 29.02.2012 is extracted hereunder: “Please refer to your letter No.F.2(2422)CS/ESTT/94/342527 dated 30.01.2012 on the subject cited above, I would inform you that name of Sri Pradip Debbarma, StoreKeeper has been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 1.8.2000 and 24.11.2006 and both the DPCs recommended for promotion of Sri Debbarma to the post of Inspector (Food) and kept his promotion to the Post of Inspector in Sealed cover due to pending Disciplinary Proceeding as per provision. As per seniority position his name will be placed in the next Group-C DPC for promotion to the post of Inspector (Food) as per seniority cum merit list.” 4. By the representation dated 19.03.2012, Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition, the petitioner claimed his promotion to the post of Inspector (Food) from the date when his juniors were appointed on promotion to the said post. In Para2.10 of the writ petition, the petitioner had made the following statement: “It would be relevant to state herein that after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, in the year 2003, vide the Order dated 29.08.2003 (Annexure-P1 supra), till 21.05.2010, no other departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner.” 5. On 22.05.2010, the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs issued a memorandum containing the charges of misconduct including misappropriation of PDS rice and sugar for his personal gain by admixing soil, brick chips etc. with rice and sugar. The said memorandum was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.24 of 2011. Further by the order dated 26.10.2010 it was directed that recovery of a sum of Rs.49,071/from the salary of the petitioner @Rs.4,500/per month be recovered. For such recovery, no departmental proceeding was drawn up. with rice and sugar. The said memorandum was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.24 of 2011. Further by the order dated 26.10.2010 it was directed that recovery of a sum of Rs.49,071/from the salary of the petitioner @Rs.4,500/per month be recovered. For such recovery, no departmental proceeding was drawn up. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 05.04.2011 with the direction as undernoted, in view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents that they had withdrawn the order dated 26.10.2010, whereby the said recovery was ordered: “In view of the above the main grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. In the departmental proceeding that may be initiated against the petitioner, he shall be provided with all reasonable opportunities to defend his case.” Thus, the petitioner’s grievance is confined to the period from 30.08.2003 to 21.05.2010, within which the impugned orders dated 03.01.2007 and 06.12.2007 were issued causing supercession of the petitioner by the respondents No.4,5 & 6. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 29.02.2012, Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition, whereby it was communicated that the DPC held on 01.08.2000 and 24.11.2006 recommended for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector (Food) but kept his promotion to the post of Inspector (Food) under the sealed cover ‘due to pending disciplinary proceedings’. 6. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has categorically submitted that when the DPC sat on 24.11.2006, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. As such, keeping the result of the consideration as stated under the sealed cover is grossly illegal and an act of colourable exercise of power. 7. The respondents No.1 and 2 by filing a composite counter affidavit have stated that the order of promotion dated 03.01.2007, Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition, has been made on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC held on 24.11.2006. According to those respondents, the petitioner’s case was duly considered but‘there commendation was kept in sealed cover’. The other order of promotion dated 06.12.2007, Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition, is again based on the recommendation of the DPC held on 03.11.2007. According to those respondents, the petitioner’s case was duly considered but‘there commendation was kept in sealed cover’. The other order of promotion dated 06.12.2007, Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition, is again based on the recommendation of the DPC held on 03.11.2007. The DPC held on 03.11.2007 has considered the case of the petitioner and found the petitioner unfit for promotion ‘dueto the currency of the penalty.’ They have further asserted that the DPC held on 01.08.2000 considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Food) and his case was kept under the sealed cover. As the petitioner was awarded penalty by the order dated 27.08.2003, he was not entitled to get the benefit of such recommendation, even if the same is positive in nature. The respondents No.1 and 2 in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that: ‘The said recovery would continue about 14½ years. Thus, during the currency of penalty of recovery in pursuance of the punishment order dated 27.08.2003, it is not advisable to promote the petitioner from the post of Store Keeper, if not otherwise recommended by the subsequent DPC’. 8. Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. He has reiterated that during currency of penalty a person holding a civil post cannot be held fit for promotion. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , where it has been held by the apex court as under: “28. The Tribunal has also struck down the following portion in the second subparagraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 which reads as follows: ‘If any penalty is imposed on the officer as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings against him, the findings in the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon’ and has directed that if the proceedings result in a penalty, the person concerned should be considered for promotion in a Review DPC as on the original date in the light of the results of the sealed cover as also the imposition of penalty, and his claim for promotion cannot be deferred for the subsequent DPCs as provided in the instructions. It may be pointed out that the said subparagraph directs that ‘the officer's case for promotion may be considered in the usual manner by the next DPC which meets in the normal course after the conclusion of the disciplinary/court proceedings’. The Tribunal has given the direction in question on the ground that such deferment of the claim for promotion to the subsequent DPCs amounts to a double penalty. According to the Tribunal, ‘it not only violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution compared with other employees who are not at the verge of promotion when the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against them but also offends the rule against double jeopardy contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution’. The Tribunal has, therefore, held that when an employee is visited with a penalty as a result of the disciplinary proceedings there should be a Review DPC as on the date when the sealed cover procedure was followed and the review DPC should consider the findings in the sealed cover as also the penalty imposed. It is not clear to us as to why the Tribunal wants the review DPC to consider the penalty imposed while considering the findings in the sealed cover if, according to the Tribunal, not giving effect to the findings in the sealed cover when a penalty is imposed amounts to double jeopardy. However, as we read the findings of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal in no case wants the promotion of the officer to be deferred once the officer is visited with a penalty in the disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal desires that the officer should be given promotion as per the findings in the sealed cover.’ 29. According to us, the Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If, further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not right in striking down the said portion of the second subparagraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal.” [Emphasis added] 9. In Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, it has been held in no uncertain words that when an employee is held guilty and penalised and for that reason is not promoted till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. While considering an employee for promotion, his whole records have to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalty imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. But this observation has been qualified by holding further that the promoting authority can take into consideration, the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground. It will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a latter date because of the pendency of the proceeding. All though it is for conduct prior to the date, the authority considers the promotion. 10. From the rival contentions as projected for the parties what has emerged is that the respondent No.2 in view of the order dated 27.08.2003 did not act on the sealed cover as kept by the DPC held on 01.08.2000. Such action cannot be faulted as the petitioner was awarded penalty on culmination of the departmental proceeding. But whether the subsequent DPC held on 24.11.2006 had acted legally by keeping their recommendation under sealed cover or whether the DPC held on 03.11.2007 had acted legally by declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion ‘due to the currency of penalty’.It is the admitted position that prior to 22.05.2010, there was no departmental proceeding against the petitioner after 27.08.2003 till the dates when those two subsequent DPCs were held. Hence, keeping the recommendation under sealed cover by the DPC held on 24.11.2006 was grossly illegal and cannot be sustained. Hence, keeping the recommendation under sealed cover by the DPC held on 24.11.2006 was grossly illegal and cannot be sustained. The said sealed cover shall be opened and the respondent No.2 shall act thereon. The other question that has fallen for consideration before this Court is whether ‘the penalty’ as awarded can be considered in force or currency when the DPC sat on 03.11.2007. In this regard, a reference be made to Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It would be apparent that the recovery has been placed and prescribed under Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and that falls within the category of minor penalties and withholding of promotion which is a separate penalty provided under Rule 11 (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 11. The recovery of loss is only available under Rule 11(iii) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and in the rule no limit has been prescribed. But by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training’s office Memorandum No.11012/1/2000Estt.(A) dated 06.09.2000 it has been provided, as paraphrased in the Swamy’s Compilation of CCS CCA Rules, as under: “3. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law. It was observed that the DG, P & T instructions prescribed the procedure to effect the recovery of the amount levied as penalty in terms of Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and these procedural instructions cannot amend, supersede, or modify the substantive provisions of Rule 11(iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. While it is expected that in imposing the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss the Disciplinary Authority should not display such severity that a Government servant suffers hardship disproportionate to his negligence/misconduct that led to the loss, it is not necessary to fix a rigid limit for the purpose of such recovery. The DG, P & T instructions would, therefore, be treated as unwarranted. Therefore, the implication of this OM is to recover the entire loss from the delinquent official but the recovery may be spread over till entire loss is recovered.” 12. It is well settled that denial of promotion during the currency of penalty cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India nor does it subject an employee to double jeopardy. It is well settled that denial of promotion during the currency of penalty cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India nor does it subject an employee to double jeopardy. In Union of India and others vs. K. Krishnan, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1898 , the apex court has observed in Para4 as under: “4. We have considered the matter closely and in our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal both in the impugned judgment and in the earlier decisions holding that as a result of the provisions of Rule 157 forbidding the promotion of a State employee during the currency of the penalty results in a second punishment, is not correct. There is only one punishment visiting the respondent as a result of the conclusion reached in the disciplinary proceeding leading to the withholding of increment, and the denial of promotion during the currency of the penalty is merely a consequential result thereof. The view that a Government servant for the reason that he is suffering a penalty or a disciplinary proceeding cannot at the same time be promoted to a higher cadre is a logical one and no exception can be taken to Rule 157. It is not correct to assume that Rule 157 by including the aforementioned provision is subjecting the government servant concerned to double jeopardy. We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no justification or rationale behind the policy; nor do we see any reason to condemn it as unjustified, arbitrary land violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, to punish a servant and at the same time to promote him during the currency of the punishment may justifiably be termed as self contradictory. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside.” 13. But what would exactly mean or imply by the phrase ‘the currency of penalty’ there is no definition either in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or in the law as developed. It has to be understood only from the nature of penalties as prescribed under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. There are broadly two categories of penalties under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. One category is comprised of minor penalties whereas the other category is comprised of the major penalties. It has to be understood only from the nature of penalties as prescribed under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. There are broadly two categories of penalties under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. One category is comprised of minor penalties whereas the other category is comprised of the major penalties. The categorisation has been made on the well laid foundation of proportionality. For purpose of imposing major penalties the procedure that has to be followed in a departmental proceeding has been laid down under Rule 14 of the said rules whereas for purpose of imposing minor penalty, the procedure has been laid down under Rule 16 of the said rules. But on completion of the proceeding the disciplinary authority remains within his competence to impose minor penalty even though the procedure that was followed during the departmental proceeding was under Rule 14 of the said Rules. But the departmental authority does not have the same power to impose a major penalty when the procedure was followed under Rule 16 of the said rules. The reduction to a lower stage in a time scale of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect and not adversely effecting pension falls in the category of minor penalties. If such penalty is imposed, currency would mean the period that would be prescribed and which obviously would not be beyond three years. As such, if reduction to a lower stage in the time scale by one stage is directed for a period for three years, the currency would mean three years. But where a minor penalty is imposed without prescribing any period or where no period is prescribed, can it be said that the employee who has been found to have indulging in the misconduct would suffer the consequence of such minor penalty through the entire tenure of his service? The answer must be in the negative. If the recovery of the whole or the part of any pecuniary loss caused by the delinquent employee to the Government by negligence or by breach of orders, is ordered it cannot be said that would be continuing till the entire recovery is made. The answer must be in the negative. If the recovery of the whole or the part of any pecuniary loss caused by the delinquent employee to the Government by negligence or by breach of orders, is ordered it cannot be said that would be continuing till the entire recovery is made. The division of the amount to be recovered by several instalments is not part of the penalty but is a beneficial measure to avert hardship to the concerned employee which has been brought in the domain by the said beneficial practice direction. For purpose of comprehension, Rules 11(v) & (vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be studied for having the purport of currency as the consequence of the penalty. Rules 11(v) & (vi) are reproduced hereunder: “(v) save as provided for in Clause (iii) (a), reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay for a specified period, with further direction as to whether or not the Government servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to lower timescale of pay, grade, post or Service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period to the time -scale of pay, grade, post or Service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period - (a) the period of reduction to timescale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and if so, to what extent; and (b) the Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher timescale of pay, grade, post or service.” 14. Both the rules as reproduced above, speak of a specified period and also direction whether or not, on promotion after expiry of the said specified period, the said period of reduction to time scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay and if so, to what extent. Such penalties cannot be imposed without specifying the period or qualifying its future effects. Such penalties cannot be imposed without specifying the period or qualifying its future effects. These penalties are included in the major penalties for misconduct of grave nature. The recovery of the loss falls under the minor penalties as the said misconduct is limited to negligence or breach of the order and hence, during the period of recovery the delinquent officer shall not suffer any further detriment, else that will be more than a major penalty. Having regard to the nature of penalty as awarded against the petitioner by the order dated 27.08.2003, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the period of recovery cannot be treated as the currency of the penalty. Hence, by not considering the case of the petitioner, the DPC held on 03.11.2007 had acted illegally. It is further to be noted that when the DPCs, held on 24.11.2006 and 03.11.2007, considered the case of the petitioner along with others including the respondents No.4,5 & 6, the petitioner was under no disability and as such, considering the petitioner unfit merely for ‘currency of the penalty’cannot be sustained. However, if it is found on opening the sealed cover as kept by the DPC held on 24.11.2006, the petitioner was similarly declared unfit for currency of the penalty, the said recommendation shall also be treated as quashed by this Court for the same reason. 15. Having held so, the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to reconvene the DPC to reconsider the case of the petitioner on 24.11.2006, if required and on 03.11.2007, if necessary for promotion to the post of Inspector (Food) on 24.11.2006. If the DPC finds him fit for promotion without taking any notice of the recovery, the petitioner shall be promoted w.e.f. 03.01.2007 when the respondents No.4 & 5, who are admittedly junior to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of Inspector (Food) in the scale of pay of Rs.500010300/. But the petitioner would get the notional benefit till the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 06.06.2012 and thereafter, he will be entitled to pecuniary benefits. But the petitioner would get the notional benefit till the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 06.06.2012 and thereafter, he will be entitled to pecuniary benefits. In the event, the DPC does not find the petitioner fit to be promoted on 04.11.2006 for any reason other than the currency of penalty, then his case would be considered with the persons who were considered on 03.11.2007 and the respondent No.2 shall promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector (Food) w.e.f. 06.12.2007 when the respondent No.6 was promoted in the said post, if the DPC finds the petitioner suitable to be promoted on 03.11.2007. It is reiterated that the currency of the penalty shall not be any ground for denying the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector (Food) on the dates when the respondents No.4,5 & 6 were considered by those DPCs and the petitioner shall get the pecuniary benefits from 06.06.2012. For the preceding period, if he is promoted in terms of this direction, the petitioner’s pay shall be fixed notionally in the event of his promotion to the post of Inspect (Food) from the date when his juniors, the respondents No.4,5 & 6 were promoted. The necessary consequential orders shall follow in respect of the respondents No.4,5 & 6. The respondents No.1 and 2 however shall be at liberty to create a supernumerary post for a period which may be required to adjust the new situation. 16. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Records as produced by Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel are returned under sealed cover.