1 Basant Lal vs. General Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No.1012/99) Date of Order:- 26.08.2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.M.S.Singhvi , for the appellant. Mr.U.C.S.Singhvi, for the respondent no. 2 and 3. Heard Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.U.C.S.Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th May,1999, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ application. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- The writ petitioner was denied promotion on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer(D). The order as such was challenged in writ jurisdiction of this Court and to issue directions to the respondents to promote him on the post of Assistant Administrative Officer(D) against the vacancies of 1983 from the date persons junior to him, were promoted with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, dismissed the writ application on non joinder of party inasmuch as, the writ 2 petitioner had sought relief against the persons junior to him, who were promoted against the vacancies of 1983. The learned Single Jude of this Court based his findings on the basis of several judgments of the Apex Court, as referred to in the order impugned. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer(D) and and in his place, some other persons, who were junior to him, were considered and promoted. For issuance of writ of mandamus, therefore, it was necessary for the Court to grant relief against the persons already impleaded party in the writ application. It is also not in dispute that the persons, who were promoted against the vacancies of the year 1983, were not made parties . Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the writ application, the necessary party was the Company and it was already impleaded as party respondent and therefore, there was no need to implead other persons, who were promoted against the vacancies of 1983. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of “the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Anr. vs. A.V.R.Siddhanti & Ors.”, AIR 1974 S.C., 1755, in the case of “A.Janardhana vs. Union of India & Ors.”, (1983) 3 SCC, 601 and in the case of 3 “B.Prabhakar Rao & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.”, AIR 1986 S.C., 210. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. Owing to the nature of relief sought for by the writ petitioner, no relief could have been granted without hearing the persons, who were already promoted on the post for which, promotion was denied to the writ petitioner. The learned Single Jude of this Court, keeping in view, these aspects of the matter, therefore, was of the view that no writ can be issued to pay salary to two persons for one post and thus, considered the question of non joinder of party and dismissed the writ application. At this stage, it appears to us that the writ petitioner who was 58 years old at the time of filing of the appeal, must have attained the age of superannuation. We also presume that by efflux of time since, he continued in service, he must have got some due promotions . At this stage, therefore, it will be too late for this Court to issue any direction to the authorities to consider the case for promotion, even after his superannuation and that also without hearing the necessary parties. We have gone through the judgments as aforesaid referred by the learned counsel and in our view, the judgments do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case of this appeal. 4 In our view , therefore, no useful purpose would be served by issuing any direction or up setting the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal accordingly, is dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (NARAYAN ROY) CJ. Aditya/-