ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “1. Hold that the impugned order dated 18-08-2010 (Annexure P/1) cancelling the representation dated 24.07.2010 is bad in law. 2. Issue an appropriate writ and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 18-08-2010 (Annexure P/1). 3. Issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits by virtue of revival of the order dated 14.01.2002 (Annexure P/6 ). 4. Grant any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as peon with the respondent Board. While working as Nakedar he was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector Grade-II, subject to approval of the Director of Mandi. However, by the time the Director declined to approve the said promotion, whereas the petitioner had already worked for more than two years on such post, i.e. from 01.11.1975 to 23.12.1977. The petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the Director of Mandi to approve his promotion for want of rules filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal, the said petition was transferred and registered as Transfer Application No.1372/1988. The said Transfer Application was finally decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.1993 holding that his case would be considered by the respondents for promotion to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II and in case the petitioner is found fit, he would be entitled to be placed over and above his juniors in the gradation list. The petitioner submits that despite there being a very clear order in addition to his repeated representations, he was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II vide order dated 11.12.1996 and not prior to that. Moreover, the petitioner was promoted to the said post very arbitrarily w. e. f. 27.07.1993 only, i.e. the date of order of the learned Tribunal, whereas there was a clear direction in the Tribunal's order that in addition to granting all consequential benefits, in case of being found fit the petitioner would be entitled for seniority over and above his juniors. The petitioner being aggrieved of the above, preferred many representations for being given promotion w.e.f. 10.10.1980, i.e. from when his juniors have been promoted and therefore, vide order dated 14.01.2002 he was given promotion to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II w. e. f 10.10.1980 and was accordingly placed in the gradation list. The petitioner was further placed and treated as on the promoted post of Secretary, Mandi Board and continued to work there till his retirement w. e. f. 31.05.2004. The petitioner subsequent to his retirement in place of receiving his retrial benefits was highly shocked to receive the order dated 28.06.2005 by which the respondents cancelled the order dated 14.01.2002 awarding promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 10.10.1980. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P. No.3461/2005. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2010, by which the order dated 28.06.2005 was quashed and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of six weeks. In light of the said observation, the petitioner made a fresh representation dated 24.07.2010, but the same has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1). Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law. The respondents ought to have appreciated that after being promoted to the post of Secretary Grade-IV w. e. f. 10.10.1980 vide order dated 14.01.2002, the petitioner could not have been reverted to the lower post without giving any opportunity of hearing. The respondents ought to have appreciated that there was no illegality in giving the fruits of the post of Secretary Grade-IV w.e.f. 10.10.1980 to the petitioner, as a number of junior employees had already been given the said benefits from that very date. The respondents ought to have appreciated that in view of the direction given by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.1993, the petitioner was placed on the post of Mandi Inspector after duly being considered by the authorities and therefore, the respondents should not have cancelled such order while deciding the representation of the persons holding junior position in the gradation list. The respondents ought to have appreciated that vide order dated 27.07.1993 (Annexure P/2) while directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption on the post of Mandi Inspector Grade-II, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the petitioner in case of being found fit, would be given seniority above his juniors and he would be entitled for all the consequential benefits, meaning thereby that there was no scope to interpret that the petitioner's absorption from 10.10.1980 was not proper. The respondents ought to have appreciated that the order dated 14.01.2002 was passed by a duly competent authority under the law and the same could not have been rejected. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Kamal Krishna Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. and others, passed in WP No.18868/2014. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not claiming any relief against the respondent No.1 State and the State is a formal party in this petition and the petitioner is an employee of Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent State. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Mandi Inspector Grade II w.e.f. 27.07.1993 by order dated 11.12.1996. Though vide order dated 14.01.2002 the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Mandi Inspector w.e.f. 10.10.1980 but there was no reason at all to absorb the petitioner on the post of Secretary Grade IV w.e.f. 10.10.1980. The order of State Administrative Tribunal dated 27.07.1993 provided for absorption of the petitioner on the post of Marketing Inspector Grade II and not on the post of Secretary Grade IV. Thus, the order of Commissioner, Mandi/Managing Director was not in accordance with the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner filed a representation to the Managing Director, Mandi Board on 08.10.2010 requesting to grant him benefits of pay and post of Secretary from 10.10.1980. It was on the representation made by the petitioner that the order Annexure P-6 dated 14.01.2002 was issued. The petitioner filed a representation to the Managing Director, Mandi Board on 08.10.2010 requesting to grant him benefits of pay and post of Secretary from 10.10.1980. It was on the representation made by the petitioner that the order Annexure P-6 dated 14.01.2002 was issued. Thus, the petitioner has misrepresented before the competent authority to get an order in his favour, as such vide order dated 28.06.2005, the order dated 14.01.2002 granting the petitioner the benefit of pay and post of Secretary was canceled by the Managing Director. The Managing Director has passed a speaking and well reasoned order. The order dated 28.06.2005 was passed after objections being raised by other employees with regard to grant of seniority and post to the petitioner and deciding the objections of other employees, the Managing Director has passed the order dated 28.06.2005. The petitioner by misrepresentation had obtained the order dated 14.01.2002. The order dated 14.01.2002 was not in consonance with the spirit of order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 27.07.1993. However, since the order dated 28.06.2005 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2010, the subsequent representation of the petitioner has been decided after giving him due opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was initially appointed as Peon with the respondent Board and while working as Nakedar, he was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector Grade-II, subject to approval of the Director of Mandi, however by the time the Director declined to approve the said promotion. Thereafter the petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court of M.P. and after constitution of State Administrative Tribunal, it was transferred there and was registered as Transfer Application No.1372/1998 and the Tribunal decided the case in favour of petitioner vide order dated 27.07.1993. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II vide order dated 11.12.1996 w.e.f. 27.07.1993, whereas the petitioner was seeking his promotion w.e.f. 10.10.1980. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Mandi Inspector, Grade-II vide order dated 11.12.1996 w.e.f. 27.07.1993, whereas the petitioner was seeking his promotion w.e.f. 10.10.1980. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred representations before the respondent authorities and ultimately vide order dated 14.01.2002, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Mandi Inspector Grade-II w.e.f. 10.10.1980 and was accordingly placed in the gradation list, but subsequently vide order dated 28.06.2005, the order dated 14.01.2002 was cancelled, against which the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WP No.3461/2005 before this court, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2010 and the order dated 28.06.2005 was quashed and the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, upon which the petitioner filed representation on 24.07.2010, but the same has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure-P/1). 8. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly objected in this petition on the ground that the respondent authorities have duly considered the representation of petitioner and after following direction of this Court have passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2010. 9. It is clear from the records and pleadings of both the parties that previously the learned Tribunal passed the order dated 27.07.1993 (Annexure-P/2) in favour of the petitioner. It has been observed in operative para 7 as under:- In the context of discussion in forgoing paragraphs the application succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed consider the applicant for absorption on the post of Marketing Inspector Grade II as per rule 83 and if found fit he should be given seniority above his juniors. We shall be entitled to all consequential benefit / flowing from this order. No order as to costs. 10. The petitioner had filed representation before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority has passed the order dated 11.12.1996 (Annexure-P/4). We shall be entitled to all consequential benefit / flowing from this order. No order as to costs. 10. The petitioner had filed representation before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority has passed the order dated 11.12.1996 (Annexure-P/4). The operative part of this order is as under:- ^^----------------------------------vkSj pawfd ek0 U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fu.kZ; ij lafofy;u lfefr us fnukad 01@11@86 dks fopkj fd;k rFkk mUgsa e.Mh fujh{kd oxZ&2 osrueku 1150&1800 esa ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds fnukad 27@07@93 ls lafofy;u fd;k tkuk ekU; fd;k rFkk blds QyLo:i mUgsa ofj"Brk rFkk vU; ykHk fn;k tkuk Hkh ekU; fd;kA vr% e0iz0 d`f"k mit e.Mh ¼e.Mh fuf/k ys[kk rFkk jkT; foi.ku lsok ds xBu dh jhfr rFkk vU; fo"k;½ fu;e] 1980 ds fu;e 83 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dh mi;ksx esa ykrs gq;s Jh jktdqekj flag Bkdqj orZeku esa fyfid d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr HkkVkikjk ftyk jk;iqj dk e.Mh fujh{kd oxZ&2 1150&1800 esa jkT; foi.ku lsok ds vUrxZr fnukad 27@07@93 ls lafo/kkfu;u fd;k tkrk gSA vkSj mUgsa bl lafofu;u ds QyLo:i mikftZr vU; ykHk iznku fd;s tkrs gSA** 11. It is also not disputed that as per Annexure-P/6 dated 14.01.2002, the petitioner was granted benefit of absorption and promotion since 10.10.1990. The petitioner got retired on 31.05.2004 and after one year of his retirement, the respondents passed the order dated 28.06.2005 (Annexure-P/10). When the petitioner filed writ petition against this order, this Court vide order dated 12.07.2010 in WP No.3461/2005 observed in paras 1, 2, 3 & 4 as under:- “1. At the very outset, Shri Lokesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 3 submits that admittedly the impugned order dated 28/06/2005 was passed by the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur without affording an opportunity of hearing, quashing the order dated 14/01/2002 (Annexure P/5), which was granted in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the same may be quashed and proper order will be passed in accordance with law. Shri Singh further submits that if a representation is made pointing out all the legal and other objections, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 2. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation and the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the same within stipulated period. 3. 2. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation and the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the same within stipulated period. 3. In view of foregoing, if the application is made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent, quashing the impugned order dated 28/06/2005.” When the petitioner filed another representation (Annexure-P/12), the respondents passed the order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure-P/1). It is clear from this order that the Competent Authority considered the order of the learned Tribunal but again dismissed the claim/representation of the petitioner. The operative part of this order is as under:- ^^Li"V gS fd Jh Bkdqj eaMh fujh{kd dks foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad cksMZ@eaMh@U;k@ 88@01&02@1456 jk;iqj] fnukad 14&1&2002 }kjk fnukad 10-10-80 ls lfpo in ,ao osru dk ykHk iznku djus gsrq tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k og e.Mh cksMZ }kjk fnukad 11-06-2002 }kjk 03 lnL;h; milfrfr xfBr }kjk izkIr izfrosnu ds vuqlkj ,ao jkT; 'kklu ds izkIr fof/kd lykg vuqlkj oS|kfud :i ls mfpr ugha ik;k x;kA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] fcykliqj }kjk ;kfpdk Øekad 3461@2005 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds ifjis{; esa fiVh'kuj Jhjktdqekj flag Bkdqj ds izkIr vH;kosnu ij fopkjksijkar ik;k x;k fd foHkkx ds dk;kZy;hu vkns'k Øekad cksMZ@eaMh@U;k0@88@01&02@1455&56 jk;iqj] fnukad 14&1&2002 dks ftlds }kjk Jh Bkdqj dks lfpo ds in ij 10-10-80 ls lfpo oxZ&4 ds in ij lafofy;u ,oa ofj"Brk ekU; x;k Fkk] mls foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad @ Øekad@ch&1@21&1¼88½ 1646 jk;iqj] fnukad 28-06-2005 }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k gS og fof/k ds vuqdwy gksus ls Jh Bkdqj ds izkIr vH;kosnu fnukad 26-7-2010 dks ftlesa iwoZor lfpo ds in ij inLFk djus dk vkxzg fd;k x;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA** 12. It is clear from the above discussion that when this Court quashed the second order dated 28.06.2005, again the respondent authorities observed that the order dated 28.06.2005 is according to law and thereby dismissed the representation dated 26.07.2010 of the petitioner. It is clear from the above discussion that when this Court quashed the second order dated 28.06.2005, again the respondent authorities observed that the order dated 28.06.2005 is according to law and thereby dismissed the representation dated 26.07.2010 of the petitioner. Thus it is clear that the respondent authorities did not consider this fact that this Court had earlier set aside the order dated 28.06.2005 and the Competent Authority again after the order of this Court again found that the order is according to law. It is very surprising that the respondent authorities did not consider the representation of the petitioner in its true perspective and again restored its previous order, which was already set aside by this Court. The respondent authorities also did not consider this fact that the petitioner had got retired in the year 2004 and after 1 year of his retirement, the order dated 28.06.2005 was passed. 13. The High Court of M.P. in the matter of Kamal Krishna Dwivedi (supra) held in paras 6 & 7 as under:- “6. The core issue is whether after the retirement of the petitioner, he can be held to be ineligible for promotion. More so, after promotion on the said post of Upper Division Clerk in the year 1991, the petitioner was further promoted on the post of Accountant and Head Clerk. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner from the fruits of such promotion after his retirement. Interestingly, the respondents have not passed any order in accordance with law whereby the said promotion on the post of Upper Division Clerk was ever cancelled. After petitioner's retirement, it is no more open to the respondents to say that the petitioner was not eligible for consideration in the year 1991. The respondents have missed the bus and they cannot be permitted to take away the right which has already been crystallized in the year 1991. The same view is taken by this court in Radheshyam Maheshwari (supra).” 14. In the present case also, it is clear that the petitioner was promoted in light of the State Tribunal’s order and after his retirement, his promotion was cancelled by the respondents even after passing of the order of this Court. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure-R/1) is hereby set aside. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure-R/1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits as per previous order dated 14.01.2002. The entire dues be calculated and be paid to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum till the date of realization.