THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.17985 of 2001 DATED:12.08.2009 Between: U.L.Satyanarayana. .. Petitioner. And Hindusthan Cables Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, o, Elgin Road, Lala Lajpat Rao Salani, Kolkatta, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in not extending him the financial benefits in pursuance of the notional preponement of his promotions vide orders dated 26.12.1999 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to release the said financial benefits to him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-Company appointed the petitioner as Tradesman-B on 07.11.1975 as he fulfilled all the requisite qualifications. Initially, though the petitioner was put on probation for a period of one year, the respondents have declared his probation on 03.01.1978 with effect from 06.11.1976. Subsequently, the petitioner was given all the promotions from the posts of Tradesman Grade-B to Tradesman Grade-G treating that his probation was declared on 03.01.1978. Thereupon, the petitioner gave a representation to the Chief General Manager requesting to consider his case for preponement of the promotions given to him taking into consideration the actual date of declaration of his probation i.e., 06.11.1976 and, accordingly, the 4th respondent issued orders dated 26.12.1999, ordering notional preponement of the promotions of the petitioner, but however, monetary benefits were granted only with prospective effect i.e. from the date of order. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd respondent on 30.12.1999, seeking to grant him monetary benefits with retrospective effect i.e. from the dates of promotion as preponed in the order dated 26.12.1999 of the 4th respondent. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the said representation, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from service and, considering the same, the authorities retired him from service with effect from 31.01.2001, however, without granting him the monetary benefits as sought by him in his representation dated 30.12.1999. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. When once the authorities have agreed that the petitioner is entitled for preponement of his promotions as indicated in the order dated 26.12.1999, the monetary benefits in view of that preponement shall be granted with retrospective effect i.e. from the dates of promotion as preponed, but it is not known as to why the respondents have denied such benefit to the petitioner. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order dated 26.12.1999 is bad in law insofar as granting monetary benefits with prospective effect. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are hereby directed to extend the monetary benefits to the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e. from the dates of promotion as preponed in the order dated 26.12.1999 of the 4th respondent. As the petitioner retired from service as early as in the year 2001, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider the payment of the said monetary benefits at the earliest. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 12.08.2009 Note: Issue cc in three days B/o v v