JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. This is the third attempt of the petitioner before this Court for getting promotional relief. 2. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 950 of 1996 (R) praying therein for quashing of the order of punishment, which was imposed on him in a Departmental Proceeding. The said writ application was allowed by this Court by order dated 07/02/1997 and the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner was quashed on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner for the charge for failure of duties though no such charge was framed against, him in the Departmental Proceeding. The learned Single Judge of this Court by the aforesaid order observed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including promotion etc. if permissible under the law. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ application. 3. Thereafter the petitioner made representation for his promotion alongwith the order of this Court. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 06/10/1997, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application, only on the ground that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of promotion dated 30/04/1997 he may follow the Grievance Procedure of the Company. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, again filed a writ application before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3219 of 1997 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 09/04/1998 with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation according to the Grievance Procedure of the Company making out a case for his promotion from the year 1989 in view of the order passed in CWJC No. 950/1996 (R). Since the petitioner did not get any relief, he filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 228/1998 (R) against the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 09/04/1998. 4. The Division Bench by judgment dated 02/11/1998 in L.P.A. No. 228/1998 (R) noticed the fact that the appellants claim for promotion was not considered in the year 1989 because of the Departmental Proceedings. After he was exonerated he was entitled to get his case for promotion considered with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. After he was exonerated he was entitled to get his case for promotion considered with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. The Division Bench by the aforesaid judgment allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the petitioner, set aside the order dated 09/04/1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3219/1997 (R) and the petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh representation seeking promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and other higher posts at least from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits before the Chairman- cum-Managing Director of the Company and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation stating his claim for such promotion before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, by order dated 05/01/1999, as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application, rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion holding that his claim was not found to be justified after examining the matter a fresh in compliance of the order dated 02/11/1998, passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director in the said impugned order stated that at relevant time in 1989 the post of Superintending Engineer was s selection grade post to which employees were selected by a selection committee on the basis of comparative merit and not by virtue of their seniority. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director held that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer/Senior Manager with effect from 01/12/1993 correctly and as per rules of the Company therefore, no injustice was done to him. It was further held that no doubt Sri I. Gupta, who was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Zonal Engineer, but by virtue of his promotion in the year 1989 and 1993, he was upgraded and he was drawing higher pay than the petitioner and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that he was entitled for the same benefit to that of Sri I. Gupta, who was junior to him, was not tenable as per rules of the Company. 6. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a contempt application before this Court, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 38/1999 (R). 6. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a contempt application before this Court, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 38/1999 (R). By filing the said contempt application, the petitioner had prayed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company for violating the order dated 02/11/1998, passed in L.P.A. No. 228/1998 (R) stating therein that in violation of the order, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30/08/1999 after hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, held as follows: The submission seems to be a misconceived one in as much as the authority, while disposing of the representation, has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter in terms of the direction of this Court. We do not see any reason to initiate a contempt proceeding, as prayed for in this M.J.C. application. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-10 to this writ application. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order dated 05/01/1999 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HSCL, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application by filing this writ application. 8. Mr. Ughal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, did not, in fact, consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 228/1999 (R) and he was wrongly and illegally denied the promotional benefit. 9. On the other hand Mr. Pati, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter of promotional benefit of the petitioner was considered by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and after examining the case, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by him by a cogent and reasoned order. 10. It is settled law that the promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. At best the petitioner can pray only that his case for promotion be considered. In the present case the petitioner though has been promoted but his grievance is that his promotional benefit was not given from the date he was entitled, i.e. since 1989 or at best since 1993 when his junior Sri I. Gupta was given promotion. 11. At best the petitioner can pray only that his case for promotion be considered. In the present case the petitioner though has been promoted but his grievance is that his promotional benefit was not given from the date he was entitled, i.e. since 1989 or at best since 1993 when his junior Sri I. Gupta was given promotion. 11. On perusal of the impugned order, passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, I find that he has given cogent and specific reason for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. More over the Division Bench also by order dated 30/08/1999, passed in M.J.C. No. 38/1999 (R), as contained in Annexure-10 to this writ application, has held that the submission of the petitioner that his case was not considered in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench on 02/11/1998, was misconceived rather the authority concerned has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter in terms of the direction of this Court. 12. In view of this findings of the Division Bench of this Court, there is no scope for any interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction challenging the order passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HSCL, as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed. No Costs.