ORDER 7.05.2007 — Heard Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.05.1995 under Annexure-11 and to direct the opposite parties to promote him firstly to the post of Inspector Grade-I with retrospective effect from 1973 and then to different higher posts at appropriate stage and adjust him in promotional posts accordingly and give all consequential benefits and pay differential wages. 3. The brief facts as delineated in the writ petition tend to reveal that on 12.7.1969 the petitioner was appointed as an Insurance Agent under the National Insurance Company Ltd.; on 1.10.1969 he was promoted as Inspector and on 1.11.1970 he was confirmed in the post of Inspector. On 22.09.1970, petitioner’s services were terminated vide order in Annexure-1 and the peti¬tioner assailed the aforesaid order of termination by raising an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and ultimately after the failure of con¬ciliation and refusal of the Central Government to refer the matter to industrial forum the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No.1004/1973 and this Court disposed of the said OJC vide its order dated 21.2.1975 directing the Union of India to refer the matter for adjudication and accordingly the matter was re¬ferred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal on the question of legality and validity of termination of his service. Ultimately on 17.11.1985, the Tribunal passed an award answering the reference in favour of the petitioner holding that the termi¬nation of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that the order of termination was illegal and unjustified and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. The order of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the Management in OJC No.914 of 1986 and this Court by its judgment dated 4.05.1990 dismissed the writ petition confirming the award in respect of reinstatement and back wages, but the back wages was reduced to 75%. The aforesaid order of this Court was also challenged before the apex Court and the said order remained unaltered and the SLP preferred by the Management was dismissed. The aforesaid order of this Court was also challenged before the apex Court and the said order remained unaltered and the SLP preferred by the Management was dismissed. Thereafter, on 25.11.1991, the peti¬tioner received a letter from the Regional Manager, Kolkata of the Corporation to join the Division Office, Cuttack and the petitioner accordingly reported for duty on 26.11.1991. But the petitioner came to know that he was fitted in the lowest rank and his case for promotion had not been considered. The petitioner in this regard made a representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation (O.P. No.1) on 14.2.1992 and as no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner again filed a writ petition bearing OJC No.2417/1993 and this Court by its order dated 14.11.1992 disposed of the writ petition holding that non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion in¬fringes the right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and accordingly the writ petition was allowed and a direction was given that the case of the petitioner for promotion shall appro¬priately be considered in accordance with the Rules and Regula¬tions of the Company. Thereafter, the impugned order in Annexure-11 was passed. 4. A bare perusal of Annexure-11 discloses that the peti¬tioner was reinstated in service in the cadre of Development Officer, which was subsequently categorized as Development Offi¬cer Grade-II at the lowest of grade with corresponding allowances and accordingly the salary was released. As regards the promotion from Development Officer Grade-II, it is stated that the peti¬tioner failed to bring any premium for the Company and as the promotion is linked to the procurement of premium, the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Development Officer Grade-I and thereafter to Assistant Administrative Officer. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he should have been given promotion, as because non-procurement of premium was not due to his latches, but for the fact that he was not in service from 22.9.1970 till his rein¬statement on 26.11.1991 and as such it was not possible on his part to procure any premium or show his performance. It was further argued that while the services of the petitioner was terminated he was working as Inspector and thereafter the Company was nationalized and thereafter Inspector Grade-I & Grade-II were created and on the day of the reinstatement he was reinstated as Inspector Grade-II. It was further argued that while the services of the petitioner was terminated he was working as Inspector and thereafter the Company was nationalized and thereafter Inspector Grade-I & Grade-II were created and on the day of the reinstatement he was reinstated as Inspector Grade-II. But by then he had already procured a premium for about Rs.90,000/- for which he should have been promoted to the post of Inspector Grade-I. 6. In opposition to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the National Insurance Company submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed in Annexure-11 to be interfered with because the order was passed by this Court in OJC No.2417/1993 directing to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with rules and regulations and the order in Annexure-11 was passed in terms of the regulations governing the field, i.e., Rationalization Scheme, 1976 and amended from time to time. According to Mr. Mohapatra, the petitioner was reinstated in the post of Inspector Grade-II which was re-designated after the nationalization and on the day of his reinstatement he was not due for promotion as he had not procured any premium. Rs.90,000/- premium which had been procured, if for the sake of argument according to Mr. Mohapatra, is taken into consideration that also falls short of Rs.1,00,000/- which is the required norm of the Company. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain persons who have been given promotion even though they procured the premium of Rs.45,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. In our view that will not give a right to the petitioner to be considered for promotion. 7. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to get any promotion after he was reinstated in service. As we find, the petitioner is not entitled to promotion to the post of Inspector Grade-I as the rest of the promotions are linked to procurement of premium and as the order of this Court in O.J.C. No.2417/1993 was that the promotion shall be considered as per rules and regulations, we do not find any illegality or infirmities in Annexure-11, which according to us has been passed taking into consideration the rules and regulations governing the field, i.e., Rationalization Scheme, 1976. 8. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.