CWP No.15074 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.15074 of 1990 Date of decision : 16.5.2011 Devki Nandan Gupta .........Petitioners Vs. State Bank of Patiala, Patiala and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr.Narender Kumar Vashishth, Advocate, for Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondents --- 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? --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- 1. The writ petition seeks for a promotion on a notional basis for re-fixation of his pay on a promoted post and for other consequential benefits. The admitted case is that the petitioner was superannuated, after having served with the bank for 42 years, on 31.1.1989. In the course of his service, he had been promoted as MM Grade-II on 1.7.1981, but later, granting him the benefit in terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Kashmiri Lal CWP No.15074 of 1990 -2- Arora and others, the petitioner had been placed in MM Grade-II w.e.f. 1.10.1979. The pay of the petitioner was also re-fixed and the consequential arrears were also paid to him. 2. In May 1989 i.e. after his retirement, it appears that an interview for promotion from MM Grade-II to MM Grade-III for a vacancy for the year 1985, was sought to be held and at that time the petitioner was sought to be served with intimation of interview. The contention of the petitioner is that although he had retired, since the promotion was for consideration for a vacancy of the year 1985, he was eligible for the promotion and he must be taken as promoted from that date. 3. I find the contention to be wholly frivolous. If an intimation for interview had been sent to him even after the period of his superannuation, it must be taken as a mistake and cannot be taken as his entitlement to be promoted or his pay to be re-fixed on a higher scale of pay although he had been promoted. A person cannot draw a salary atttached to a higher post which he did not hold at any time during the service. The contention made by him was that some of his juniors had been promoted from MM Grade-II to MM Grade-III and that he was, therefore, to be given notional promotion. So long as the promotion from MM Grade-II to MM Grade-III was not purely by seniority and it was on the basis of selection, the petitioner cannot treat himself as having because entitled to a higher post, when he had been superannuated from CWP No.15074 of 1990 -3- service. 4. The writ petition is without merit and dismissed as such. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.5.2011 akm