Judgment 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th September, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dismissing the Original Application No. 17 of 1997 filed by him for directing the respondents to extend the benefit of promotion to the post of Hindi Superintendent from the date of promotion of his next junior, i.e. with effect from 1.10.1993 with arrears of pay and allowances with interest on arrears and to declare that he will be deemed to have been posted as Hindi Superintendent at Katihar with effect from 8.4.1996 on transfer of Sri K.R Singh to Maligaon. 2. The petitioner was posted as Hindi Assistant, Grade I under the Divisional Railway Manager (Rajbhasa), N.F. Railway, Katihar. A selection test was held for appointment to the post of Hindi Superintendent and the petitioner was selected vide selection list dated 10.9.1993. He was posted as Hindi Superintendent at Lumding (Assam) vide order dated 30th September/1st October, 1993. Two others who were junior to the petitioner were also selected by the same order and they were promoted and on promotion they were posted at their place where they were working from before. The petitioner did not join at Lumding (Assam). On the other hand on 14.10.1993 he filed a representation requesting the authorities to post him at Katihar by transferring, if necessary, one post to Katihar which was lying vacant at Maligaon (Assam). The Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F. Railway, Katihar, forwarded the application of the petitioner to the General Manager (P) vide memo dated 9.11.1993 as well as to the Mukhya Rajbhasha Adhikari, N.F. Railway. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, Katihar also wrote D.O. letter to the Mukhya Rajbhasha Adhikari, N.F. Railway requesting to post the petitioner on promotion as Hindi Superintendent at Katihar itself by transferring one vacant post of Hindi Superintendent from the Railway Headquarters, Maligaon. 3. It appears that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for making intemperate language in the representation which was dropped by the Senior Rajbhasha Officer, Katihar on 28.1.1994. The order of the disciplinary authority was reviewed suo motu by the appellate authority who was also agreed with the order of the disciplinary authority but advised the petitioner that the language in the representation should be refined, polite and factual. The order of the disciplinary authority was reviewed suo motu by the appellate authority who was also agreed with the order of the disciplinary authority but advised the petitioner that the language in the representation should be refined, polite and factual. The reviewing authority reviewed the order and imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year on the petitioner with a liberty to file an appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Manager and as the same was not being disposed of he came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and the appellate authority set aside the order of punishment passed by the reviewing authority but warned to be careful in future. 4. On 8.4.1996, one Sri K.P. Singh, retired from the post of Hindi Superintendent, Katihar and the Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar, directed the petitioner to take over the charge on the post of Hindi Superintendent and since then he is performing the duties of Hindi Superintendent but he is not being paid his salary etc. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he did not join the post on promotion at Lumding as he was not spared/relieved by the superior officer and as such there was no fault on his part and accordingly, he should be promoted and paid salary from the date his juniors were promoted on the post of Hindi Superintendent. 6. The stand of the respondents-Railway on the other hand is that inspite of the promotion of the petitioner and posting at Lumding (Assam), he did not join the same. There was no vacancy of Hindi Superintendent at Katihar. One Sri K.R Singh who was senior to the petitioner was subsequently promoted and posted at Katihar as Hindi Superintendent against the post transferred from Apoj to Katihar for a period of three months and subsequently he was adjusted at Katihar when the vacancy arose due to retirement of Sri R.K. Prajapati. Further case of the Respondents-Railway is that the panel of selected candidates for promotion remains valid for two years from the date of approval as per the Rule 220 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual , Volume I, 1989 Edition. The petitioner did not obey the order of transfer on posting and promotion, on the other hand, requested for posting at Katihar itself. The petitioner did not obey the order of transfer on posting and promotion, on the other hand, requested for posting at Katihar itself. His representation was considered by the General Manager (P) who passed the order that if the petitioner was not willing to carry out his promotion order within a fortnight it would be treated as refusal and he would be debarred from promotion for one year with effect from 1.10.1993. After expiry of the life of the panel again the petitioner was asked to appear in the fresh selection to be held on 4.7.1997 but the petitioner did not appear and reported sick. At no point of time, the superior authority prevented the petitioner from joining at the place of posting and the assertion that he was not being relieved by the Superior authority is not correct. It is further stated that the direction to the petitioner to work on officiating basis as Hindi Superintendent in place of Sri K.R Singh was not a regular promotion rather he was directed to officiate and as such on that basis the petitioner cannot claim promotion with effect from even that date. 7. The Tribunal having considered the matter found that the petitioner deliberately did not join the place of promotion and as such he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for. 8. Admitted position is that the petitioner was selected and promoted to the post of Hindi Superintendent on 10.9.1993 and he was posted at Lumding (Assam). If it is found that the petitioner did not deliberately join the said post then he could have no claim for promotion from the date as admittedly he did not join the promotional post. In case it is found that the petitioner was prevented from joining because he was not relieved by his superior authority then he can have a case for the reason that an employee cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of his own. 9. The petitioner admittedly filed a representation and his representation was forwarded by his superior officer. In case it is found that the petitioner was prevented from joining because he was not relieved by his superior authority then he can have a case for the reason that an employee cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of his own. 9. The petitioner admittedly filed a representation and his representation was forwarded by his superior officer. No doubt the petitioner has made out a case that he was not being relieved by the Superior Officer but the letter dated 18.11.1993 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar addressed to the Mukhiya Rajbhasha Adhikari N.F. Railway on which the petitioner relies, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application, shows that at no place it has been stated that the petitioner is not being relieved because of any exigency of work, on the other hand, a request was made to the concerned authority to the effect that the post of Hindi Superintendent which was transferred to Maligaon to Katihar for three months should be extended for one year so that the petitioner may be posted. There is nothing in the said letter to support the stand of the petitioner that he was not being relieved by the superior authority. Thus, the very foundation of the claim of the petitioner that he did not join the place of his posting on promotion as he was not being relieved by the authorities is not supported by any material on record. On the other hand, the General Manager by letter dated 11.2.1994 which has been quoted in extenso in the order of the Tribunal has clearly directed that if the petitioner is not willing to carry out his promotion order within fortnight, it will be treated as refusal and he will be debarred from promotion for one year w.e.f 1.10.1993 as per extant rule. Admittedly, the petitioner did not join within that period and as such he was not entitled to promotion on the basis of selection made earlier. Subsequently, he was given chance to appear in the examination in the year 1997 but he did not appear in the examination. Admittedly, the petitioner did not join within that period and as such he was not entitled to promotion on the basis of selection made earlier. Subsequently, he was given chance to appear in the examination in the year 1997 but he did not appear in the examination. The petitioner cannot take benefit of Rule 220(c) of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (Volume I) as the petitioner was not prevented for officiating on higher post for reasons beyond his control and in that situation only he was not required to appear for fresh selection. He has not joined the post for his own reason and that will amount to refusal on promotion in terms of the said Rule. The petitioner cannot claim to be posted at a particular place on promotion and as he did not join the post inspite of extended period as mentioned in the letter of the General Manager (P), the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner did not join the post on his own and as such he is not entitled to claim promotion from the date of selection. We fully agree with the view taken by by the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.