Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9/29.6.2010 issued by the Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, whereby the petitioner is not held to be entitled for promotion, payment of ex-gratia, leave encashment and refund of penal rent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was in service of the respondents. The petitioner was allegedly caught redhanded while taking bribe from a contractor and for the said allegation a criminal case was instituted and the petitioner was taken into custody on 2nd September, 1978. The petitioner was subsequently tried by the Special Court, C.B.I., Patna in Special Case No. 17 of 1978 and was found guilty of the charge under Sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. After his conviction he was also issued a charge-sheet by the Department. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and also filed his reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner's appeal was allowed and his conviction was set aside by the judgment of Patna High Court dated 7.8.1998. However, the petitioner, during pendency of the appeal, attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.1.1994. 4. After setting aside the judgment of conviction the petitioner had claimed for his salary for the period he was put under suspension on the ground of custody and said criminal case and the respondents had accepted the same and paid his salary for the said period. However, the petitioner was denied his promotion, ex-gratia payment, leave encashment, etc. The petitioner had filed a representation which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9/29.6.2010 (Annexure 10) whereby the respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim by recording reasons. According to the petitioner, the reasons assigned for denying the petitioner's said claim is wholly arbitrary and is illegal. Once the petitioner's services were deemed to be regularised by paying salary for the period of suspension, he was also entitled for his promotion, ex-gratia payment and leave encashment as also the other benefits. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the order passed by the Director (Personnel) denying the petitioner's claim of promotion, ex-gratia payment, leave encashment and other benefits is self-speaking and a well-reasoned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the order passed by the Director (Personnel) denying the petitioner's claim of promotion, ex-gratia payment, leave encashment and other benefits is self-speaking and a well-reasoned order. The petitioner was put under suspension after he was taken into custody in a criminal case and subsequently he was convicted by the Trial Court. Later on, the petitioner was acquitted in appeal but in the meanwhile the petitioner retired on 31.1.1994. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to get promotion. It has been submitted that as per the cadre scheme and promotion procedure, the promotion to higher grade is not only based on seniority, but also on merit. The D.P.C. had considered all the relevant information• placed before it including confidential/appraisal reports before making the recommendation. As the petitioner was under suspension from 2.9.1978 to 7.3.1984 his CRs would have reflected the CBI case. From 7.3.1984 till the date of superannuation he was a convict. In addition, the Vigilance Clearance and Departmental Clearance would also form part of the criteria for considering the case in D.P.C. The petitioner, being a convict, was not qualified for clearances from vigilance and department. The exgratia payment is in the nature of incentive and is a performance linked. Since the petitioner was under suspension w.e.f. 12.9.1978 till the date of his suspension, no work was taken from him during the said period and since there was no performance, the petitioner was not entitled to get ex-gratia which is a performance linked incentive. The petitioner was also not entitled to get leave encashment, as the petitioner was under suspension till the date of his retirement and not earned leave for the suspension period. 6. I have heard learned counsel and considered the facts and materials on record and also perused the impugned order passed by the Director (Personnel) refusing the petitioner's claim. I find that the petitioner was put under suspension as he was taken into custody in connection with a criminal case on 12.9.1978 and he remained under suspension till the date of his retirement on 31.1.1994. I find that the petitioner was put under suspension as he was taken into custody in connection with a criminal case on 12.9.1978 and he remained under suspension till the date of his retirement on 31.1.1994. The respondent has assigned reason that due to involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and being a convict, he was not entitled for consideration for promotion as for the purpose of giving promotion, according to the Company's Rules, the CRs, vigilance clearance and departmental clearance are taken into consideration. Since the petitioner was a convict he was not qualified for clearance from both vigilance and department. He has further considered that ex-gratia is in the nature of performance linked incentive, but the petitioner was under suspension. Similarly he has also considered that the petitioner was under suspension from 2.9.1978 till his date of retirement on 31.1.1994 and as such he has not earned leave. He has also considered the other claims and passed a reasoned order. The order of Director (Personnel) is well discussed and supported by sound reason. 7. I, therefore, find no illegality and arbitrariness in the order. There is, thus, no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.