ORDER Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Plaintiff authorities to promote the Petitioner to the post of Higher Grade Assistant, to pay the dearness allowance on the graduation allowance and further, to give details of the leave taken by the Petitioner and not to deduct any further amount on account of extraordinary leave. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the Petitioner are that initially, he was appointed as Peon on 26.03.1963 at Divisional Office, Jabalpur. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Record Clerk w.e.f. 25.09.1971 and was posted at Raipur. After completion of his graduation in the year 1980, he was further promoted to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.1986 and was posted at Branch No. 2. Raipur. The Petitioner passed the examination held by the Plaintiffs for promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistant in the year 1997 and was kept at serial No. 3 in the waiting list. The Petitioner again applied for the said post in the year 1998 wherein, the Plaintiff No. 2, by letter dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure P/1), informed the Petitioner that it was not possible to include his name for interview. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was granted one increment but has not been paid the dearness allowance on the graduation allowance as the Petitioner had passed graduation in the year 1980. The further grievance of the Petitioner is that a substantial amount (without specifying the amount) has been deducted from his salary towards the extraordinary leave without giving details of the leave taken by the Petitioner. 3. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has been deprived of his genuine right of promotion as under the Schedule of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 (for short, 'the Rules, 1987'), the requirement is 10 years service as Assistant which the Petitioner fulfills. Shri Kotecha would next submit that the Petitioner has also been deprived of dearness allowance on graduation allowance as per the provisions of Clause 9 read with Clause 15 of the Instructions for Implementation of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules, 1996'). Shri Kotecha would next contend that the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount deducted by the Plaintiffs on account of the extraordinary leave, without giving the details, which is impermissible in law. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs would submit that service of 10 years is not the only criteria for promotion. It also includes work record and interview. Thus, it cannot be held that the Petitioner was illegally denied consideration for promotion. Ranking list of all the applicants was prepared as per provisions under Schedule 5 column (5), five times i.e. first 50 applicants were called for interview, since the Petitioner could not secure ranking within first 50 he was not called for interview in promotion for the year 1998-99. Since the selection was made amongst candidates competing for such post and the Petitioner could not qualify even for interview call, his request is wholly unjustified and has No. right to claim on the basis that he was in the waiting list of 1997-1998, thus, he should have been called for interview and declared selected for the promotion in the next year i.e. 1998-1999. The wailing list becomes operative only in a situation when vacancy of a particular post remains vacant due to non-joining by the selected candidate for the particular promotion or due to death/retirement of employee during the said period, before notification of promotion for the next year. No. sooner the promotion for next year is announced, the waiting list becomes inoperative. The candidate has to apply a fresh and compete with the other eligible candidates in the next round of promotion. Further, the Petitioner has not submitted any document to show that he has been deprived of the benefits provided to him for his increment for graduation qualification and dearness allowance, thereafter. Increment is sanctioned in running scale of the cadre and the same form a part of salary on which dearness allowance is determined as well as benefit of provident fund deduction, house rent allowance, etc. are also fixed. Not only this, whenever the pay/salary is revised fixation benefit is always considered on such increment. In other words, fixation benefit is calculated for higher basic in which graduation increment is included. Where as special allowance is not a part of basic in running scale. are also fixed. Not only this, whenever the pay/salary is revised fixation benefit is always considered on such increment. In other words, fixation benefit is calculated for higher basic in which graduation increment is included. Where as special allowance is not a part of basic in running scale. After revision of pay scale, it is not necessary to include special allowance in pre-revision basic and to consider fitment under Revision Rules. The Petitioner was granted graduation increment on his promotion for the post of Assistant w.e.f. 01.10.1986. The Petitioner has not made it clear from any document that how he has been deprived of dearness allowance from 01.08.1992 to 11.07.1994. Shri Sharma would next contend that the Petitioner is a habitual absentee without prior intimation to the concerned authority. However, his absence was treated as extraordinary leave (i.e. leave without pay) as per the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Regulation) 1960 (for short 'the Regulation, 1960'). Extraordinary leave is not a facility for an employee automatically but it is sanctioned by the competent authority at the request of such employee which protects him from discontinuation in the service. Since the Petitioner had not worked/attended the office, he was not entitled to wages/salary on the ground of 'no work-no pay'. Further, the Petitioner has retired from service on superannuation, thus, the relief Clause No. 7(iii) may not be granted. The Petitioner accepted all the retiral dues without any pre-condition or protest. 5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Contention of Shri Kotecha that since the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.1986, he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistant as the Petitioner had completed 10 years service in the scale of Assistant, is rejected. On perusal of the schedule to the Rules, 1987, it is found that conditions of feeder cadre for promotion to the higher post is Section Heads or five years service in the scale of Assistants and pass in the Departmental Test or on acquiring prescribed technical qualifications or 10 years service in the scale of Assistants. But thereafter, the promotion is to be granted on the basis of qualification and seniority. For qualification, the maximum marks was 10 and for seniority, it was 20, and maximum for both, it was 25. But thereafter, the promotion is to be granted on the basis of qualification and seniority. For qualification, the maximum marks was 10 and for seniority, it was 20, and maximum for both, it was 25. For work record and interview, the maximum marks was 25. The relevant portion of the schedule, reads as under: Sr. No. For promotion to the cadre of Categories eligible Conditions of eligibility Marks to be allotted (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 5. Higher Grade Assistants Section Heads Stenographers Assistants and all other employees in the scale of Section Heads or Assistants. (a) Section Heads OR (b) 5 years' service in the scale of Assistants and a pass in the Departmental Test or on acquiring prescribed Technical qualifications. OR (c) 10 years' service in the scale of Assistants. Qualification and seniority (Maximum 10 marks for qualification and 20 marks for seniority) Maximum 25 for both: Work Record: 25 Interview: 25 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 7. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was kept in waiting list at serial No. 3 as he had passed the examination for promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistant. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the Petitioner could not be called for interview, by letter dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure P/1), does not merits acceptance. It appears that the Petitioner was considered in accordance with law and kept in the waiting list. However, he could not be appointed, may be for various reasons which cannot be examined as No. other materials or documents, except the above stated submission that he has been deprived of promotion to the higher post illegally, has been produced. Further, since No. materials have been produced, it is difficult to know asto whether the Petitioner was qualified after written test and had secured qualifying marks in the seniority and qualification, for interview thereafter, on this ground also, No. adjudication is possible. The fact remains that when the Petitioner became eligible he was considered for promotion but it appears that in the select list, he could not find a place as per requirement for appointment. Since No. defect has been pointed out or it has also not been pointed out that there was any irregularity or there was non-compliance of the statutory rules, and as such it cannot be held that the Petitioner was denied promotion illegally. Since No. defect has been pointed out or it has also not been pointed out that there was any irregularity or there was non-compliance of the statutory rules, and as such it cannot be held that the Petitioner was denied promotion illegally. Thus, the contention of the Petitioner, as aforestated, is rejected. 8. With regard to payment of dearness allowance on graduation increment, admittedly, the Petitioner was granted graduation increment, on passing graduation examination and as such, the Petitioner was entitled to dearness allowance on graduation increment also. The Plaintiffs, in its reply has categorically stated that the Petitioner was granted graduation increment and thereafter that became a part and parcel of the salary on which dearness allowance was payable which was duly paid to the Petitioner. The Plaintiffs have filed a detailed chart indicating grant of dearness allowance on the salary of the Petitioner which included graduation increment. Grant of graduation increment is also admitted by the Petitioner. 9. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996 clearly provides that special allowance for passing examination under the rules would not be counted for dearness allowance. However, the graduation allowance is different from special allowance which becomes a part and parcel of the salary. The Plaintiffs have clearly stated that the dearness allowance is calculated on the basis of total salary which was regularly paid to the Petitioner. However, the representation dated 10.04.1999 (Annexure P/5) made by the Petitioner that he was not getting dearness allowance/HRA on graduation increment, has not been responded to by the Plaintiff, but the same has been clarified in their return. Under the Rules, 1996, the Petitioner is not entitled to payment of Rs. 1000/- per month as he was getting graduation allowance before 01.04.1989. 10. So far as third relief of the Petitioner is concerned that he is entitled to payment for the period his absence was treated as extraordinary leave, the case of the Plaintiffs is that in order to give continuity, the unauthorized absence of the Petitioner was treated as extraordinary leave. However, payment was not made on the principle of 'no work-no pay'. However, payment was not made on the principle of 'no work-no pay'. The Petitioner, in this petition has sought direction to give the details of the leave taken by the Petitioner and not to deduct any further amount towards extraordinary leave, cannot be granted as this is very unusal that if the details are not given, the period max not be treated as extraordinary leave. Thus, this contention is also rejected. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is No. merit in the case. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.