M.H.S. Ansari, J. - (1.):- Matter lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner has questioned the denial of promotion to the petitioner in the post of M-2 Grade. Petitioner has also questioned the office order being Annexure P-5 whereby petitioner amongst others was informed not to report before the Deprartmental Promotion Committee which was considering promotions of executive from M-1 to M-2 Grade in 1998.
(2.)It must be stated here that by subsequent order No. CIL/C5A(ii)/50923(vol. vii)/10.40 dated Feb. 14, 2002 petitioner has been promoted to the post of Chief Mining Engineer in M-2 Grade. It is further directed in the said order that the seniority position of the petitioner in M-2 Grade will be according to the position accorded to him in D.P.C. which met in the months of March, 2002 to June, 2002. It has further been clarified as under:
"The above promotion is subject to the result of the writ Petition No. 2917/90, R.K. Prasad Vs. CIL and SECL pending before the Honourable High Court at M.P., Jabalpur and also in the matter No..... of 1995, Prasanna Kumar Malakar Vs. CIL & Ors., pending before the Honourable High Court at Calcutta and also Title Suit No. 10 of 1997, Dipak Kumar De, Agent/Dy. CME, ECL Cs. CIL & Ors., pending with Honourable Court 2nd Munsif at Asansol."
It is the case of the petitioner that he was eligible for promotion from M-1 to M-2 Grade and had been granted such promotion by the D.P.C. held in the month of Nov., Dec., 1995 and Feb., 1996. The grievance is that the petitioner was illegally denied the promotion despite the recommendation made by the said selection-cum-DPC 1996. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be granted the promotion effective from 1996.
(3.)Above fact has not been disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent authorities, however, the claim is resisted for the reasons stated in paragraph 11 viz;
".......the petitioner along with other eligible candidates were considered for promotion from M-1 to M-2 grade in mining discipline by the Selection- cum-D.P.C. held in the month of Nov., Dec., 1995 and Feb., 1996. The said Selection- cum-DPC recommended the petitioner along with others for the said promotion. Since the complicity of the petitioner as regards the over reporting of Coal production and concealment of fact relating to coal stock shortage as stated in paragraph 7 hereinbefore and a disciplinary proceedings was under contemplation the promotion order of the petitioner could not be released. Thereafter the disciplinary proceedings was concluded as already "fated hereinbefore. It is further worth mentioning here that the petitioner was further cautioned with respect to coal stock shortage vide an order no. Vig/Spl. Cell/CSS/SBBS/97/1646-52 dated 10th July, 1997 while he was working as Superintendent of Mines in Sirka open case colliery. The said factor was also the reason for non-release for the promotion of the petitioner."
(emphasis supplied)
;