JUDGMENT G.R. Moolchandani, J. On 03/09/1973, the appellant was offered appointment on temporary basis as LBT Inspector. He joined on 20/09/1973. On 01/03/1974 he was appointed as an LBT Inspector Gr.II against the temporary post on probation and was confirmed on 27/02/1981. 2. He appeared at the Rajasthan Subordinate Services Competitive Examinations in the year 1981 and being successful was appointed on probation against the temporary post of Commercial Tax Inspector on 18/01/1982. He joined on 01/02/1982 as a probationer against a temporary post. On 16/09/1987 he was confirmed as a Commercial Tax Inspector with retrospective effect i.e. 01/02/1982. 3. On 26/04/1982 the posts of LBT Inspectors were declared surplus and by an order dated 17/06/1982 the surplus LBT Inspectors were absorbed as Inspectors in the Commercial Tax Department. They were assigned seniority as Commercial Tax Inspector with reference to the date of joining the Land and Building Tax Department as LBT Inspectors. These persons were admittedly junior to the appellant as LBT Inspectors because they had joined as LBT Inspector after the appellant had joined. 4. Appellant claimed seniority over these persons being 27 in number. Relief was denied by the department. Appeal filed by the appellant before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal came to be dismissed and so did the writ petition filed by him vide impugned-order dated 10/09/2009. 5. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant was a probationer when surplus LBT Inspectors were absorbed as Commercial Tax Inspectors pursuant to the order dated 17/06/1982. For purposes of seniority they were given benefit of service rendered as LBT Inspectors. Unfortunately for the appellant he had ceased to be a LBT Inspector when he joined as Commercial Tax Inspector on 01/02/1982. Order declaring LBT Inspectors surplus was dated 26/04/1982. Thus, the appellant would rank junior. 6. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that till he was made permanent as a Commercial Tax Inspector he held a lien on the post of a LBT Inspector. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the lien would be terminated when he acquired lien on a permanent post and that when LBT Inspectors were declared surplus on 26/04/1982 the appellant was no longer working as a LBT Inspector. 7. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the lien would be terminated when he acquired lien on a permanent post and that when LBT Inspectors were declared surplus on 26/04/1982 the appellant was no longer working as a LBT Inspector. 7. The learned Single Judge has noted that the issue of seniority had to be determined as per Rule 15 of the Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969. The rule has not been discussed. But the reasoning appears to be that seniority of surplus employees has to be by placing them below the junior most permanent employee. Since appellant was not a permanent employee in the Commercial Tax Department in April, 1982 no benefit of said rule could be granted to him. 8. Only sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969 is relevant. It reads as under:- "15. Seniority.- (1) The seniority of a surplus employee appointed substantively to a permanent post in the service or cadre in which he is absorbed shall be determined by the appointing authority concerned by placing him below the junior-most permanent employee of the new service or department who has a longer period of continuous substantive service on the post compared to the continuous substantive service of the surplus employee on equivalent or higher post. The seniority of a surplus employee who is absorbed on a higher posts on officiating basis shall be determined only in respect of his permanent post : [Provided that the seniority of the surplus employee whose length of continuous service in substantive or officiating capacity or in both such capacities is lesser than the length of continuous service in substantive or officiating capacity or in both such capacities of the junior most permanent employee of the service or cadre of the New department in which such surplus employee has been absorbed, shall be determined by placing the surplus employee immediately below the said junior most permanent employee in the service or cadre or the department in which the surplus employee has been absorbed.]" 9. Whilst it may be true that as per the said rule seniority of surplus employees has to granted by placing them below the junior-most permanent employee of the existing department, but what has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge is that vide order dated 16/09/1987 the appellant was retrospectively confirmed as an Inspector in the Commercial Tax Department w.e.f. 01/02/1982. The benefit of retrospective confirmation required appellant to be treated as a permanent employee w.e.f. 01/02/1982. As noted above, surplus LBT Inspectors were transferred on 26/04/1982. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant was appointed as a LBT Inspector and was senior to 27 surplus LBT Inspectors absorbed in the Commercial Tax Department. Had he not joined the Commercial Tax Department in January 1982 even he would have been declared surplus and absorbed in the Commercial Tax Department and in the said eventuality he would have been senior to 27 surplus LBT Inspectors. This we highlight to bring out the equity in favour of the appellant, but grant relief claimed on substantive interpretation of the law. The same is Rule 15 of the Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969, requiring seniority of surplus employees to be below the junior-most permanent employees in the department. Since the appellant was confirmed on 16/09/1987 with retrospective effect i.e. 01/02/1982 as an Inspector in the Commercial Tax Department he would be entitled to seniority above the 27 surplus employees. 10. The appeal is allowed. Direction is issued to the respondents to grant seniority to the appellant above the 27 surplus LBT Inspectors. If the person who joined on being declared surplus and would now become immediate junior to the appellant was promoted, the appellant would be given promotion from said date but on notional basis. He would not be granted salary in the promotional post but for purposes of fixation of salary relatable to pension benefit can be granted. This direction is issued because during pendency of the writ petition in this Court, appellant had attained the age of superannuation.