ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief that the respondents be directed to count his seniority from the date of his initial appointment in November, 1988 for all purposes including for the purpose of promotion on the post of Engineer in E-2 (Executive) Grade. 2. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was initially appointed in November, 1988 as an Overseer. It is submitted that the petitioner is holding a Bachelor Degree in Engineering (Civil). It is further stated that subsequently by order dated 23.7.1993 the petitioner was redesignated as an Engineering Assistant Technical-A on account of the fact that he fulfilled the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Cadre Scheme prevalent in the establishment of respondent No.1, a copy of which has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P-l. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the circular dated 15.6.1982, Annexure P-2 filed along with the petition, the persons who are degree holders were redesignated as Engineering Assistant Technical-A Grade and were given benefit of increment from the date of their placement, but the petitioner was not granted the benefit from the date of his initial appointment by treating him to be an Engineering Assistant from the very beginning thereby denying the petitioner the benefit of notional seniority on the said post from the date of his initial appointment and proper placement in the seniority list of Engineering Assistants Technical-A Grade, as a result of which the petitioner's case has not been considered for further promotion in the Executive Cadre. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. 4. The respondents, per contra, have filed a return and submitted that the circular dated 15.6.1982, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming relief, has been issued by the Central Coal Field Limited and has not been issued by respondent No.2 which is a different and separate coal company and, therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular Annexure P-2 is misplaced and misconceived as the same is not applicable to the petitioner's case. The learned counsel for the respondents, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, has also stated that the petitioner, who was a degree holder, was selected and appointed as an Engineering Assistant in Technical and Supervisory Grade-A against a notified post and, therefore, the circular Annexure P-2 is not applicable to the petitioner's case as the said circular only applies to those degree holders who were appointed as Overseers. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per the cadre scheme prevailing in the establishment of respondent No.2, an Engineering Assistant who has completed 3 years of service becomes eligible for being considered for promotion in the Executive Cadre and the petitioner, having completed 3 years of service in the year 1996, would be considered in due course for promotion in the Executive Cadre as and when vacancy arises and his turn comes, in accordance with law. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents at length. It is apparent that the circular Annexure P-2, on which the petitioner is relying, has been issued by the Central Coal Field Ltd., whereas admittedly the petitioner is an employee of the Western Coal Fields Limited which is a separate company. The petitioner has also not filed any documents, rules, regulations or bye-laws to contend that the circular Annexure P-2 would also be applicable to respondent No.2 nor has the petitioner controverted the submissions made by the respondent in the return that the circular Annexure P-2 is not applicable to respondent No.2. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the respondents in this regard deserves to be accepted. 6. That apart, it is also clear from a perusal of Annexure R-I, filed by the respondents along with. the return, that the petitioner, after due selection, was appointed as an Engineering Assistant (Civil) by order dated 23.7.1993 after going through a separate process of selection and, therefore, the question of his redesignation as Engineering Assistant in a Technical and Supervisory Grade-A by applying the circular Annexure P-2 does not arise as the said circular was applicable only to those Overseers who were holding degrees whereas the petitioner was appointed as an Engineering Assistant (Civil) and not as an Overseer. Furthermore, the respondents in their return have fairly stated that the petitioner having completed 3 years of service, would be considered for promotion in the Executive Cadre as per the provisions of the Rules on availability of vacancies in due course of time. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.