Order Heard the parties finally. 2. Petitioner's grievance is that he should have been given notional promotion from category-I to Grade-III after completion of one year from his joining, i.e. w.e.f. 10.10.1992, whereas he has been given such benefit from 26.12.1993. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that other persons were given such benefit just after completion of one year from the respective dates of their appointment. 3. Mr. Sen, appearing for the respondents, submitted that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-I by appointment letter dated 10.10.1991. As per the Circular dated 27.9.1991; the trainees were to be kept on probation for one year and accordingly after completion of one year petitioner came under cadre and on completion of one year thereafter he has been given the promotion rightly from 26.12.1993. He further submitted that the other persons were appointed directly and therefore after completion of three years in service they were given notional promotion w.e.f. completion of one year from the respective dates of their appointment. He further submitted that petitioner accepted his promotion in Grade-II in the year 1997 without any protest and thereafter he is claiming the notional promotion in Grade-I after a long delay. 4. Mr. Sahani, in reply, submitted that other persons were also sent for training and it is also not known why petitioner has been given Grade-III with effect from 26.12.1993 if he completed one year training period on 10.10.1992. He further submitted that when petitioner was given Grade-II in 1997, then cause of action arose and then he contended that he should have been given Grade-I notionally from 10.10.1992, which grievance remained pending for a long time and thereafter such claim was rejected and therefore there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the claim in question. 5. It appears that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-I by appointment letter dated 10.10.1991 on the ground of Medical unfitness of his father. Though in the printed appointment letter the period of probation was six months, but as per the Circular dated 27.9.1991, candidates were to be appointed as trainees, for different trades as per the requirement of man power, educational qualification and aptitude of the incumbents. Though in the printed appointment letter the period of probation was six months, but as per the Circular dated 27.9.1991, candidates were to be appointed as trainees, for different trades as per the requirement of man power, educational qualification and aptitude of the incumbents. The training was to be for a period of one year during which they were to be placed in category-I. After successful completion of training, tjhey were to be placed in regular category/scale of pay of the job. For clerical jobs, the incumbents were to be kept on job training and after completion of one year, they were to be regularized as clerk Grade-III. The cadre scheme (Annexure-D) provides that for clerical Grade-III, three years service in Company was required and the promotion was to be made on the basis of selection/test. It has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as trainee category-I, whereas others were directly appointed as General Mazdoor Category-I; and therefore their case is different from the case of the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as trainee, whereas others were sent for job training after they were directly appointed. Moreover, petitioner moved this Court after about 9 years. In view of all these facts and circumstances, respondents cannot be directed to promote petitioner to Grade-II I with effect from 10.10.1992. 6. In the absence of pleading, there is no reply to the question raised by Mr. Sahani that if one year is calculated from 10.10.1992, it will come to 10.10.1993 but petitioner was given Grade-III from 26.12.1993. However, the General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi (respondent no. 3) will look into this aspect and will communicate a speaking order to the petitioner, as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt! production of a copy of. this order. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.