JUDGMENT : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. D Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the review petitioner being the authorities under the State of Assam. Also heard Ms. D Borgohain, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent, who was serving as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD for short) was seeking a promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Engineer. The case of the respondent for promotion to the higher grade of Assistant Engineer was considered by the Selection Board in its meeting held on 21.06.2019 in the Office Chamber of the Chairman, APSC. But the promotion of the respondent was not favorably considered for the reason that he had not submitted the annual property return statement within the stipulated time, which according to the authorities was mandatory for promotion to Class I rank officers as per the Office Memorandum No.AAP 237/2013/33-A dated 05.02.2014. Being aggrieved WP(C)No.5562/2019 was preferred, which was given a final consideration by the order dated 14.08.2019 which is as under: "Today when the matter is called upon, Mr. Nath submits on the basis of instructions furnished by Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD (Roads), Establishment (B)Branch that case of the petitioner was placed before the Selection Board meeting held on21.06.2019 but could not be considered as the petitioner had failed to submit annual property return statement within the stipulated time which is a mandatory requirement for promotion to Class-I rank of officers as per Office Memorandum of the Personal Department, Government of Assam dated 05.02.2014. It is stated that though not mentioned in the Assam Engineering Service Rules, 1978, submission of such annual property return statement is mandatory. Regarding contention of the petitioner that he had submitted annual property return statement on 29.07.2019, it is stated that since Selection Board meeting was already held on 21.06.2019, question of consideration of such statement did not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that requirement of submission of annual property return statement was not informed to the petitioner. That apart, it is not part of the requirement under the Assam Engineering Service Rules, 1978. As noticed in the order dated 05.08.2019, petitioner is superannuating from service on 31.08.2019. At the fag end of his service career, he is seeking promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer. That apart, it is not part of the requirement under the Assam Engineering Service Rules, 1978. As noticed in the order dated 05.08.2019, petitioner is superannuating from service on 31.08.2019. At the fag end of his service career, he is seeking promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer. Denial of promotion to the petitioner on such a ground does not appear to be justified. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that a review DPC should be constituted immediately to consider promotion of the petitioner as above which should be done before superannuation of the petitioner. Let the review DPC be constituted and meeting be convened within 10 days from today where after case of the petitioner for such promotion shall be considered. Whatever decision is taken, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner before his scheduled date of superannuation. This disposes of the writ petition." 3. The learned Single Judge took note of that although the Selection Board Meeting was held on 21.06.2019, but the respondent had submitted the annual property return statement on 29.07.2019 and, therefore, the Board could not take note of the annual property return statement. The learned Single Judge also took note of that the respondent would superannuate from service on 31.08.2019 and he was seeking a promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the fag end of his service career and concluded that a denial of promotion on such ground did not appear to be justified. Accordingly it was ordered that a review DPC be constituted immediately to consider the promotion of the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of 14.08.2019, the State authorities had preferred WA No.227/2019 which was given a final consideration by the order dated 30.08.2019. In paragraph 8 of the order dated 30.08.2019 it was provided as under: “8. The post of Assistant Engineer is in Class-II and therefore, evidently the post of Junior Engineer cannot be in Class-I. While the office memorandum dated 05.02.2014 is on the subject of submission of annual property return statement by Class-I officers of Government of Assam, clause 2of the said memorandum requires all officers to submit their annual property returns in prescribed format. The State Government may take appropriate action in this regard to remove the apparent ambiguity.” 5. The State Government may take appropriate action in this regard to remove the apparent ambiguity.” 5. One of the conclusion of the Division Bench in the order dated 30.08.2019 was that the Office Memorandum dated 05.02.2014 requiring submission of annual property return statement was applicable only in respect of Class I Officers. As the respondent was a Junior Engineer and not a Class I Officer, therefore, a view was taken that it was not mandatory for him to submit an annual property return statement. 6. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge was not interfered and the writ appeal stood dismissed. 7. This review petition is preferred by the State authorities on the ground that although the Office Memorandum dated 05.02.2014, which made the submission of annual property return statement to be mandatory was applicable only in respect of the Class I Officers, but subsequently by another communication of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam dated 14.07.2016 the requirement of submission of annual property return statement to all Grade I and Grade II Officers was made mandatory. 8. We have gone through the Office Memorandum dated 05.02.2014 as well as the communication dated 14.07.2016. The communication of 14.12.2016 was made with reference to the Office Memorandum dated 05.02.2014. Further it provided that the requirement of submission of annual property return statement would be mandatory and would be applicable for all Grade I and Grade II Officers. 9. Therefore, the requirement of submission of an annual property return statement would have to be understood that it would be mandatory for all Grade I and Grade-II officers and not merely confined to Class I Officers. In view of such conclusion, we modify the provisions of paragraph 8 of the order dated 30.08.2019 in WA No.227/2019. 10. Although the conclusion arrived at in paragraph 8 of the order dated 30.08.2019, stands modified by incorporating that the requirement of submission of annual property return statement would be mandatory for all the Grade-I and Grade-II Officers, but such modifications in our view would not in any way altar the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 14.08.2019 passed in WP(C)No.5562/2019. 11. 11. We have taken note of that the respondent had submitted the annual property return statement on 29.07.2019 and his date of superannuation was 31.08.2019 and by taking note of the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge in the order dated 14.08.2019 had ordered for a review DPC to be convened to consider the case of promotion of the respondent by taking into consideration the annual property return statement submitted by him. 12. Although we have modified paragraph 8 of the order dated 30.08.2019, but such modification shall not substantially and materially affect the conclusion arrived therein that the order of the learned Single Judge of 14.08.2019 does not require any interference. But in the meantime, as the respondent had already superannuated from service, the directions of the learned Single Judge to constitute a review DPC stands reiterated and the case of the respondent for promotion as Assistant Engineer be given a proper consideration by also taking into account the annual property return statement submitted by him. 13. If the consideration for promotion is in favour of the respondent, the authorities shall retrospectively promote him w.e.f. 24.08.2019 i.e., by taking into account the time of 10 days granted by the learned Single Judge and provide him with all necessary financial benefits/implications of such promotion, including a consideration for payment of the pensionary and other retirement benefits that would be accrued had the respondent superannuated as Assistant Engineer. 14. The review stands partially allowed as indicated above.