JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 13th April 2013 (Annexure-7) issued by the Welfare Officer (T), Rajrappa Project, Central Coalfields Limited, claim of the petitioners for giving the benefit of next higher grade in terms of the Implementation Instruction No. 32 of N.C.W.A.-VI has been refused. 3. The entire case of the petitioners hinges on the question as to whether they are entitled as per the said Implementation Instruction to the next higher grade in view of the fact that they were diverted by the decision of the Management contained at Annexure-1 dated 28th May 1982 to a non-technical job of Drill Operator, though they had initially ITI certificate at the time of their appointment as a Trainee (Electrical/Machanical). Petitioners claim to be covered by the Implementation Instruction No. 32 issued under the N.C.W.A.-VI on 26th January 2002. On cumulative reading of the said instruction, it indicates that the existing ITI personnel who had completed certain number of years on training and have been regularized as such, would be notionally placed in the next higher grade with effect from 01st January 2000, but the financial benefit will accrue with effect from 01st January 2001 and this would be personal to them as one time arrangement. Other conditions in the said instructions are also to the same effect, however giving different years of completion of training in existing category/grade. The claim of the petitioners have been denied by the impugned order which refers to a subsequent clarification dated 14th/15th January 2003 as per which, Implementation Instruction No. 32 has been further clarified to mean that the benefit will be given to the existing ITI Personnel who were appointed on the basis of the ITI qualification and are working in the cadre designation of technical work. On their placement in the next higher category/grade, they will carry their own designation. However, in order to identify such person, the word 'ITI' will be mentioned against their designation. On their regular promotion, the word 'ITI' will be deleted and appropriate designation as per cadre scheme will be given. This clarification came in respect of earlier clarification dated 11th June 2002 which is annexed to the writ petition itself. Both petitioners and the respondents relied upon the same Circular dated 11th June 2002. On their regular promotion, the word 'ITI' will be deleted and appropriate designation as per cadre scheme will be given. This clarification came in respect of earlier clarification dated 11th June 2002 which is annexed to the writ petition itself. Both petitioners and the respondents relied upon the same Circular dated 11th June 2002. Clause-(i) of the said circular which is material for determination of the instant issue, is being quoted here under:- “(i) I.I. No. 32 will be applicable to those ITI persons who have been appointed/working on technical jobs for which possession of ITI certificates is a prerequisite/essential. It was clarified that merely holding an ITI certificate by an employee without reference to the work being done by him will not entitle him to the benefit under I.I. 32. The representative of the unions stated that those workers who are initially appointed based on ITI certificate but later diverted to other jobs where ITI qualification may not be essential should be covered under I.I. 32 subject to the condition that such diversion has taken place due to managerial reasons.” 4. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the persons like the petitioners who were initially appointed on the basis of ITI certificate but were later diverted to other jobs where ITI qualification may not be essential, should be covered under the Implementation Instruction No. 32, subject to the condition that such diversion has taken place due to managerial reasons. 5. Counsel for the respondents however points out to sub-paragraph of the aforesaid quoted provision and submits that merely holding an ITI certificate by the employee without reference to the work being done by him, will not entitle him to the benefit under I.I. No. 32. The case of the respondents therefore is that initially, these petitioners were appointed on the basis of vacancy and requirement of Drill Operators and on the advertisement issued thereafter as Trainee (Electrical/Mechanical) and not as a ITI Trainee (Technical). Petitioners on their own free will, had availed the opportunity of pursuing and developing their respective career in Excavation Drill Operation Discipline which still remains a non-technical job whereby many semi-literate personnel are also working as Drill Operators. Petitioners opted for the job of Drill Operators since the said post have better initial pay than other similar workers. Petitioners on their own free will, had availed the opportunity of pursuing and developing their respective career in Excavation Drill Operation Discipline which still remains a non-technical job whereby many semi-literate personnel are also working as Drill Operators. Petitioners opted for the job of Drill Operators since the said post have better initial pay than other similar workers. Therefore, no Trainee was compelled to work as Drill Operator which is a non-technical job. Counsel for the respondents essentially relying upon the aforesaid clarification, which is quoted herein-above, submits that no claim to the next higher grade can be made out on the part of the petitioners who have remained as Driller Operators which is a non-technical job despite the fact that they are having a ITI certificate. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to certain office orders in their supplementary affidavit filed on 11th August 2014 as per which, persons in the category of Drill Operator have been promoted in the next higher category with effect from 01st January 2000 and have been granted financial benefit with effect from 01st January 2001. Reference have been made to one Ram Lakhan Ram and Rajkant Singh who were promoted to the next higher grade vide office order dated 19th April 2002 and 04th May 2002 respectively. However, perusal of the said office orders indicate that they have been issued prior to the clarification of Circular of 11th June 2002 which has been imposed upon the petitioner. 7. The underlying fact which emerges out of the aforesaid discussions is that the petitioners still have remained in the category of non-technical person as Drill Operators to which, I.I. No. 32 does not seem to apply in view of the subsequent clarification dated 11th June 2002 as also 14th/15th January 2003 referred to in the impugned order. Petitioners obviously have staked their claim after almost 11 years compared to the instances of certain other persons whose references have been made in the supplementary affidavit and in respect of whom, orders were issued apparently before the said clarifications were issued. 8. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and reasons, it would not be proper in exercise of powers of judicial review to direct the respondents to pay the benefit of higher grade contrary to the policy framed by the respondents themselves and as clarified from time to time. 8. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and reasons, it would not be proper in exercise of powers of judicial review to direct the respondents to pay the benefit of higher grade contrary to the policy framed by the respondents themselves and as clarified from time to time. Accordingly, no grounds for interference in the writ petition is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.