JUDGMENT : V KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ. IN WA No.240/2024: This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.4283/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein by directing in paragraphs No.24 and 25 as under: “24. The respondents are, therefore, directed to promote the petitioner notionally from the post of Administrative Officer to the post of Assistant Manager from 2003, and more specifically, from the date on which the batch of officers belonging to the petitioner's batch were promoted. 25. Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, necessary benefits in terms of re- fixation of pay and pension shall be completed and made over to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 2. The facts as contended by learned counsel for the appellants are, the respondent while working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the appellant-Company was caught red handed by the Central bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for short) while demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.1,000/- from insured. The CBI registered a criminal case and prosecution was initiated against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent was suspended on 20.11.1998. The Special Court has convicted the respondent with a direction that the respondent should undergo imprisonment with fine. Against the said order, the respondent filed a criminal appeal before this Court challenging the conviction. In the meantime on 13.09.2002, following the conviction order, the respondent was dismissed from service, which order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. This Court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The State represented by the CBI filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. 3. The respondent filed a writ petition being WP No.31174/2003 before this Court challenging his dismissal order. This Court by order dated 10.11.2008, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant- Company to reinstate the respondent retrospectively from the date of dismissal with full backwages as well as consequential benefits. Against the said order, the appellant-Company filed a writ appeal being WA No.1904/2008 before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the order of reinstatement retrospectively with full backwages and consequential benefits. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2009, dismissed the said appeal. Against the said order, the appellant-Company filed a writ appeal being WA No.1904/2008 before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the order of reinstatement retrospectively with full backwages and consequential benefits. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2009, dismissed the said appeal. Against the said order, the appellant-Company preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLP No.998/2010. The said SLP was remanded back by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for fresh consideration on the question of backwages and other consequential benefits consequent upon reinstatement including promotion. This Court on the remand, had allowed WA No.1904/2008, whereby it reduced the backwages to 35% and further directed for the re-fixation of the salary of the respondent as well as the consequential benefits. Consequent to the disposal of WA No.1904/2008, the respondent made representations to the appellant-Company for the release of financial benefits and consequential benefits. 4. The appellant-Company’s case was, it had paid all the arrears and consequential benefits for which the respondent is entitled to. The respondent being aggrieved by the non-consideration of promotion from the Post of Administrative Officer to the Post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager, filed a writ petition being WP No.4283/2012 with a prayer to quash the endorsement dated 10.12.2010. It was this writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, the operative part has been reproduced above. 5. The submission of Smt. Manjula Nemichandra Tejaswi, learned counsel for the appellant-Company is that, consequential benefits as directed, would not include the promotion. That apart it is her submission that, for the period between 1998 and 2008 the respondent being out of service, his records like confidential record (‘CR’ for short), etc., having not been written and the rules governing the grant of promotion contemplates so, the respondent could not have been granted promotion from the post of Administrative Officer to Assistant Manager. She has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation - Vs.- G.V.Thimmappa [WA No.16714/2011 , decided on 08.11.2012 ] to contend that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that, whenever there is a direction for continuity in service and consequential benefits, the same should not follow as a matter of course and a judicial mind need to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. She prays for setting aside of the impugned order. 6. She prays for setting aside of the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, Sri. M.Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, the learned Single Judge was correct in allowing the writ petition and as such, this Court should not interfere with the same. Analysis: 7. At the outset we may state here that, this Court while deciding WA No.1904/2008, has in paragraph No.11, stated as under: “11. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter and also considering the fact that the issue relating to reinstatement has already been set at rest, in our view, in the present case, for the reasons stated above, the respondent is entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits since as brought about from the records, the respondent had already rendered 28 years of blemishless service and is at the verge of retirement and the present instance was the first time where he was exposed to such proceedings. Therefore. in the facts of the present case, we are also of the view that the respondent is entitled to backwages of 35%. Considering the fact that the parties had been litigating for quite some time, the appellant shall in terms of the above re-fix the salary of the respondent and pay the backwages as well as the consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In terms of the above, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.” There is no contest to the fact that, this Court had also granted the consequential benefits to the respondent. The intent of granting consequential benefits is to put the employee in the same position on the setting aside of the termination as if there was nothing adverse against him. It is a fact that even the case for consideration of promotion has to be in accordance with the rules. It is also a fact the rules referred to by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.15 contemplates consideration of different parameters like seniority, insurance, CR form and interview for promotion from the post of Administrative Officer to Assistant Manager and from Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager. It is also a fact the rules referred to by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.15 contemplates consideration of different parameters like seniority, insurance, CR form and interview for promotion from the post of Administrative Officer to Assistant Manager and from Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager. But the fact remains, the respondent being not in service for the period between 1998 and 2008, his CRs having not been written, his assessment could not have been made for 50 marks. We also find, the promotion from Administrative Officer to Assistant Manager is primarily divided, proportionately i.e., 50 marks for seniority and insurance and 50 marks for CR form. The relevant clause dealing with promotion is reproduced as under: "7. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND WEIGHTAGE: 7.1 Selection for promotion shall be based on seniority, Insurance qualifications and merit-cum-growth potential, as brought out in performance appraisals. In addition, for promotion to the cadre of Manager there shall be interview before selection. In assessment, maximum weightage in terms of numerical marks for various criteria shall be worked out as under:- ?.?.? TO ?.? ?.? To A.M ?.? To Dy.M DEPUTY MANAGER TO MANAGER a) Seniority b) Insurance c) C.R.FORM: i) Traits in C.R ii) Performance iii) Growth Potential d) Interview 60 10 10 12.5 7.5 - 42 8 15 15 20 - 30 - 20 25 25 - 20 - 15 25 25 15 Total 100 100 100 100 Selection: All candidates eligible under paragraph 6A shall be interviewed and/or if deemed necessary may be subjected to personal/group discussion by the respective Promotion Committee and selection will be made in order of inter-se merit as revealed at the interview and/or personal/group discussions." So it is seen, the seniority and insurance are not the only basis for promotion to the respondent. No doubt seniority is one of the relevant criteria, but the CR form is also an equal criteria for assessing the respondent for promotion. In the absence of any CRs having been written in the case of respondent, it cannot be to his prejudice. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant that it is the appellant who himself was responsible being away from service between 1998 and 2008 is not appealing. The equities have to be balanced. The non-writing of CR cannot come in the way of non-promotion of the respondent to the post of Assistant Manager on that ground. 8. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant that it is the appellant who himself was responsible being away from service between 1998 and 2008 is not appealing. The equities have to be balanced. The non-writing of CR cannot come in the way of non-promotion of the respondent to the post of Assistant Manager on that ground. 8. Though a submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent got the benefit of doubt in the appeal allowed by this Court, we have seen the judgment of this Court in Crl.A No.1551/2001 decided on 08.02.2008. It is the conclusion of this Court that the prosecution has not been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. So, it is not a case where acquittal is on technical ground. In any case, this Court while deciding WA No.1904/2008, has stated that the respondent shall be entitled to backwages as well as the consequential benefits. So, the consequential benefits shall mean consideration of the respondent for promotion. The consideration in the given facts should have been given by taking into consideration all the record of the respondent as existing. The appellant-Company having not carried out such exercise, resulted in filing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge having formed an opinion in paragraphs No.21 to 23 as under, we are of the view that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the facts of this case need no interference: “21. As far as the remaining 50 marks are concerned, since the petitioner was not in service, the question of relying upon the Confidential Record and the performance and growth potential would not arise. 22. In my view, since the selection is primarily based on seniority, apart from the three other factors, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not in service and that the petitioner possessed adequate seniority for promotion, the petitioner would also be entitled for promotion from the post of Administrative Officer to the post of Assistant Manager. 23. 22. In my view, since the selection is primarily based on seniority, apart from the three other factors, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not in service and that the petitioner possessed adequate seniority for promotion, the petitioner would also be entitled for promotion from the post of Administrative Officer to the post of Assistant Manager. 23. As far as the further promotions are concerned, since from the year 2008, the policy prescribed passing of a written examination, which the petitioner is stated to have not taken deliberately, the petitioner would not be entitled for further promotions.” That apart we find, the direction for promotion which has been granted by the learned Single Judge is only on notional basis with a further direction to re-fix his pay and pension. In other words, the respondent has not been granted any backwages from the date of promotion till his superannuation except pay fixation and the benefits in terms of such re-fixation of pay and pension to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 9. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts. That apart we state, the grant of consequential benefits cannot be automatic and has to be in accordance with the rules. But in the facts of this case and for the reasons stated above, it must be held the rules as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is primarily in normal circumstances, where there is no criminal case/any other proceedings pending against an Officer. It is not such a case here. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed 11. The directions of the learned Single Judge shall be given effect to within three months from today. 12. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. IN CCC No.362/2024: 13. In view of our above order, the contempt petition is closed, but granting liberty to the petitioner to revive the contempt petition if the direction given in paragraph No.11 above is not complied within the period specified.