JUDGMENT The Court: By the present writ petition the petitioners have inter alia prayed for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix their seniority in E-5 Grade with effect from the respective dates on which they had passed the First Class Mines Manager Certificate of Competence (MMCC, for short) while working in E-4 Grade, a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion from E-5 to M-1 Grade in terms of the Guideline, dated June 12, 2006 and for other reliefs. The petitioners are presently working as Superintendents of mines in E-5 Grade in the Coal India Limited. According to them E-2 Grade is the entry point of officers in the mining discipline and there are two channels of entry in the E-2 Grade: direct recruit or promotion. Promotion from E-2 to M-1 is based on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness. Promotion from E-2 to E-3 is automatic. However, promotion from E-3 to E-4 is dependent on the vacancy position and promotion from E-4 to E- 5 is based on the cluster concept promotion, i.e., automatic promotion on having completed three years of service. Petitioners nos. 4, 5 and 6 had passed the First Class MMCC on November 21, 2000 while in the E-4 Grade. In terms of the Coal India’s circular dated September 22, 2000 they should be promoted to E-5 Grade in the First Class stream with effect from November 21, 2000. But by an order dated September 5, 2001 the petitioners nos. 4, 5 and 6 were promoted to E-5 Grade in Second Class channel without considering the fact that they had passed the First Class MMCC on November 21, 2000. Similarly the petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 3 had passed the First Class MMCC on March 28, 2002 while they were in the E-4 Grade and they also completed two years’ service in the said Grade. In terms of the circular of the Coal India these three petitioners should be promoted to E-5 Grade in the First Class stream with effect from March 28, 2002. But the petitioners nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were promoted to E-5 Grade in the Second Class channel by an order dated September 23, 2006. In terms of the circular of the Coal India these three petitioners should be promoted to E-5 Grade in the First Class stream with effect from March 28, 2002. But the petitioners nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were promoted to E-5 Grade in the Second Class channel by an order dated September 23, 2006. The persistent case of the petitioners is that their seniority has been wrongly fixed while horizontally fixing them in the E-5 Grade from Second Class to First Class channel of promotion and the Coal India Limited formulated its policy in terms of the recommendation of the high power committee on June 12, 2006. Because of this fixation of seniority all the petitioners in the E-5 Grade, many executives who were juniors to the petitioners in terms of the service and had obtained First Class MMCC after the petitioners had superseded the petitioners and had been considered for promotion to M-1 Grade. A writ petition was filed before the Chhatisgarh High Court in the year 2001. By order dated October 18, 2004 the Chhatisgarh High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Coal India Limited, respondent no. 1 herein, to constitute a high power committee to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners therein. The petitioners allege that the respondent no. 1, however, within one year form the said order horizontally placed some executives from Second Class to First Class channel in E-5 Grade with effect from their respective dates of passing the First Class MMCC. According to the petitioners although there was an interim order passed by the Chhatisgarh High Court on April 28, 2001 the same had merged with the final order dated October 18, 2004 and now there is no impediment for the respondents to refix their seniority with effect from the date of obtaining the First Class MMCC. The petitioners further allege that the respondent no. 1 is bound to act in terms of their own circular dated September 22, 2000. The respondent no. 1 cannot take a stand contrary to their policy which would not only jeopardize the relative status of the petitioners but also will put them in an unequal position vis-avis the other executives in the E-5 Grade whose seniority had been fixed in the First Class channel on and from the respective dates of passing the First Class MMCC. The respondent no. The respondent no. 1 have contested this writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the material allegations made in the writ petition have been denied. According to the respondent no. 1 in terms of the guideline dated September 22, 2000 the Second Class Managers belonging to E-5 Grade are not eligible for any promotion. But they can be horizontally placed in their existing scales from Second Class to First Class channel on passing of the First Class MMCC from the effective date of the passing. A number of employees had filed writ petitions at Chattisgrh High Court at Bilaspur and by order dated October 18, 2004 all these writ petitions were disposed of. As per the order of the Chattisgarh High Court some of the executives who had passed in the First Class in the year 2000, 2002 and 2003 made representations which were considered by the high power committee and the committee recommended certain guidelines for fixation of seniority. The report has been accepted by the Chairman/ Managing Director from the prospective date. Thereafter, the existing policy guideline was revised on obtaining approval of the competent authority and the office memo was issued by the Coal India Limited on June 12, 2006. The respondents have contended that all the petitioners have passed the First Class MMCC either in the year 2000 or 2002 while working in E-4 Grade and in terms of the respondent no. 1’s policy dated September 2, 2000 they were to be promoted to E-5 Grade, i.e., revised E-6 Grade in First Class channel after completion of two years’ service in E-4 Grade or from the effective date of passing in First Class whichever was latter. The respondents have taken a point that the same could not be given effect to because of the interim order passed by the Chhatisgarh High Court. By an interim order dated November 2, 2011 a learned single judge of this court had directed the respondent no. 1 to recast the seniority grade which was done in respect of all the mining executives. But the said seniority list has been set aside by a division bench of this court on appeal. All those officers who come within the zone of consideration in the ratio of 1:5 are considered for promotion. 1 to recast the seniority grade which was done in respect of all the mining executives. But the said seniority list has been set aside by a division bench of this court on appeal. All those officers who come within the zone of consideration in the ratio of 1:5 are considered for promotion. But promotion orders are issued only up to the exact number of vacancies subject to clearance from the Vigilance Department and the safety angle of the executive concerned on the date of the issue of promotion order. The petitioners were considered for promotion from E-6 to E-7 in the ratio of 1:5 against 146 available vacancies by the departmental promotion committee in April, 2009. According to the respondents all the persons included in serial nos. 26 to 37 and promoted from E-6 to E-7 Grade in mining First Class channel by order dated September 4, 2012, were seniors to the petitioners in the existing seniority list. The Coal India by issuing the promotion order dated September 4, 2012 had implemented its existing promotion policy from E-6 to E-7 Grade. The respondents have contended that after the approval by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director the existing policy guidelines were revised and office memo dated June 12, 2006 was issued. The said office memo inter alia says that from the date of issue of the said memo the benefit of the promotion on passing First Class MMCC should be given to those Second Class Managers only who will pass First Class MMCC while working in E-2 Grade as was prevalent before April 1, 1993 and the executives who shall pass First Class MMCC in E-3, E-4 and E-5 Grade will be horizontally placed in the same grade in First Class channel from the effective date of obtaining the First Class. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through the pleadings I find sufficient force and justification in the submissions of the petitioners that the writ petitions which were pending before the Chhatisgarh High Court having been disposed of the interim order passed in that writ petition had merged with the final order. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through the pleadings I find sufficient force and justification in the submissions of the petitioners that the writ petitions which were pending before the Chhatisgarh High Court having been disposed of the interim order passed in that writ petition had merged with the final order. In the case of Prem Chandra Agarwal and Another –Vs.- Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation and Others, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 479 the Supreme Court had held it is well-settled principle that once a final order is passed all the earlier interim orders merge into the order and the interim order ceases to exist. Therefore, I quite agree with the submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that now there is no hurdle for the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners from the date of obtaining their First Class MMCC. The recommendation of the committee, dated September 22, 2000, having adopted a certain policy relating to promotion, the respondents must be held strictly by the said standard and no deviation therefrom should be permitted. The stand taken by the respondents that they can adopt and revise it must be held to be subject to the fact that they cannot challenge their own promotion policy nor they can assail their own order. In such view of it the petitioners are entitled to an order directing the respondents to re-fix their seniority in E-5 Grade with effect from the respective dates they had passed the First Class MMCC while working in E-4 Grade. They are also entitled to be considered for promotion from E-5 to M-1 Grade in terms of the guideline dated June 12, 2006 issued by the respondents. The respondents are directed to re-fix the seniority of the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of the communication of the order and to consider their prayer for promotion from E-5 to M-1 within four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.