- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice on behalf of all the respondents.
(2.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the respondent is denying promotion from E -4 Grade to E -5 Grade. The petitioner is working as Deputy Personnel Manager in E -4 Grade as his promotion has been denying on the ground that vigilance clearance certificate in service was not in existence when the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) held a meeting. The Committee considered the cases of promotion from E -4 scale to E -5 scale. The petitioner's case was not considered, whereas the case of his juniors, were considered and were given promotion to E -5 Grade. It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that nothing was pending as on date of which D.P.C. held a meeting for grant of promotion whatever limited query was there from the concerned authorities against the petitioner was also dissolved upon is mere explanation and therefore at the relevant time he ought to have been given promotion from E -4 to E5 Grade.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court upon Annexure -5 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner. The Annexure -5 of the supplementary affidavit reveals the fact as under: - "Shri Surendra Prasad was not issued any Memo. He was, however, issued an Explanation vide reference No. BCCL/EE/X/C/2005/413 dt. 6.9.2005. The written explanation dated 17.6.2005 submitted by Shri Surendra Prasad having been placed before Director (Pers.), BCCL and on consideration thereof, the case has been treated as closed. It was not a vigilance case. This case was not mentioned against Shri Surendra Prasad while replying to GM(P), CIL's letter No. CIL:C5A(CC):087:74 dt. 25.5.2006." ;