JUDGMENT : These two petitions are filed by an erstwhile employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. WP 5760 (W) of 2006 pertains to the leave travel allowance or the like not being given to the petitioner despite his retirement. The petitioner relies on a document of April 22, 2000 from which it is evident that his leave for the period May 10, 2000 to May 25, 2000 was sanctioned on April 22, 2000. In the affidavit filed by the coal company, a copy of a document dated April 28, 2000 has been relied upon. It appears that upon the employer discovering that a number of employees had sought leave for a particular period that would have affected the functioning of the coal company, leave of all employees for the relevant period was cancelled by the letter of April 28, 2000. All leave stood cancelled till June 30, 2000. Though the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was not made aware of the relevant document or even served the same, the petitioner has not been able to question the veracity of the document or otherwise demonstrate that notwithstanding leave of all employees being cancelled by the coal company till June 30, 2000, the petitioner proceeded on leave during the period of May 10, 2000 to May 25, 2000 as had been originally sanctioned. Since it is evident that the petitioner may not have availed of the leave despite its original sanction by virtue of the subsequent general cancellation of all leave during the relevant period, there is no merit in the petitioner’s claim for any leave travel allowance. WP 5760 (W) of 2006 fails. The second petition pertains to a promotion in 2005 where, according to the petitioner, he lost out to a candidate who was junior to him. The petitioner claims that since he was a national and international sportsperson, he ought to have been given some additional weightage because of his special skills. The petitioner compares his case to that of one Shayamapada Mukherjee whose services were regularised some two years after the petitioner’s services were regularised. The petitioner says that the said Mukherjee obtained increments and promotion ahead of the petitioner since or about the year 1984. However, it does not appear that the petitioner lodged any contemporaneous complaint upon the said Mukherjee being favoured over the petitioner. The petitioner says that the said Mukherjee obtained increments and promotion ahead of the petitioner since or about the year 1984. However, it does not appear that the petitioner lodged any contemporaneous complaint upon the said Mukherjee being favoured over the petitioner. The affidavit-in-opposition reveals that both the petitioner and the said Mukherjee reached the immediate preceding post before the promotion on or about October 18, 1996. The promotion, according to the employer, was held on the basis of seniority, qualifications and service records. Since both the petitioner and the said Mukherjee joined the feeder post on the same day, both were awarded the same marks on account of seniority. On qualifications, there was nothing to choose between the petitioner and the said Mukherjee. But when it came to the service records, in view of the better track record of the said Mukherjee, he obtained five marks more than the petitioner and secured the promotion ahead of the petitioner. In a matter of promotion, the seniority in the feeder post is of paramount importance. Since the petitioner does not question that the petitioner and the said Mukherjee were promoted to the feeder post on the same day, there is no basis to the petitioner’s assertion that by virtue of the petitioner’s service being regularised a year or so before the said Mukherjee’s, the petitioner ought to have been granted the promotion in 2005 ahead of the said Mukherjee. WP 5769 of 2006 is dismissed as unmeritorious. There will be no order as to costs. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.