IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6757 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 9th July, 2009. Sada Lal Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.10.2006 passed by the Executing Court, Muktsar whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as fully satisfied. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration claiming seniority w.e.f. 15.7.1958 or alternatively w.e.f. 6.7.1961, with all the consequential benefits. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit. However, on an appeal by the petitioner, the same was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide his judgment and decree dated 27.8.1991, the operative part of which reads as follows:- “In view of my findings on the above issues, I accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and pass decree for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to seniority w.e.f. 6.7.1961 instead of 9.3.1966 in the cadre of clerks after counting the period spent by him in the consolidation department as Patwari and he is entitled to all the consequential benefits regarding the promotion, arrears of pay etc.” Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 1992 preferred by the State of Punjab against the afore-stated judgment was also dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2003. Though most of the service benefits accruing as a result of the Civil Court judgment and decree were granted to the petitioner, he was, however, denied promotion as Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 31.1.1986 and was though promoted as such w.e.f. 12.10.1992 only. In order to claim the aforesaid relief that the petitioner filed the Execution Application which has been dismissed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order after observing that the petitioner can not claim seniority as a matter of right w.e.f. 31.1.1986 when the Senior Assistants in other Circles were promoted, more so when in the civil suit he did not specifically claim seniority w.e.f. 31.1.1986. What appears is that the petitioner wants to claim retrospective promotion as a consequential service benefit on account of assignment of seniority to him as a Clerk w.e.f. 6.7.1961. It would mean that the petitioner's claim for further promotion from the post of Clerk, i.e., as Senior Assistant, would be considered w.e.f. the date persons, who after the grant of seniority, are deemed to have become junior to the petitioner, were actually promoted. The aforesaid right of consideration, however, would accrue in favour of the petitioner only qua those juniors who were serving with him in the same cadre. The petitioner's claim does not appear to have been examined from this angle. Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2006, the matter is remitted to the Executing Court to re- examine it after directing the respondent State to place on record in a tabulated form the details of all those Clerks who became junior to the petitioner and were promoted to the next higher post and as to whether or not the petitioner has been granted the deemed date of promotion w.e.f. such dates of their promotion[s]. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any ante-dated promotion as Assistant or Superintendent Grade-II, as the case may be, the Executing Court shall consider to grant the necessary relief in this regard. Disposed of. July 09, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE