JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner, being a member of Scheduled Tribe community, was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Electrical Circle of Dhenkanal, pursuant to Annexure-1 dated 15.03.1993 in which his name finds place at serial no. 18, and his services were regularized on 25.04.1996. On the allegation of demand of bribe of Rs.600/-, Sambalpur Vigilance G.R. Case No. 17 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner. In that backdrop, by office order dated 27.05.1997 at annexure-2 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending drawal of the disciplinary proceeding. Subsequently, pursuant to office order dated 19.01.1998 at annexure-3, the petitioner was reinstated in service with immediate effect and was posted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Jajpur Road. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties at different places under E-2 grade. When he came to know that similarly situated persons had been given E-3 grade, he made a representation vide Annexure-7 dated 26.12.2006 to the Chief Executive Officer, NESCO, Balasore to give him E-3 grade w.e.f. 08.11.2004. Pending consideration of representation, he was allowed to discharge the duties of Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) at different places. 2. When the matter thus stood, the Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed against him vide judgment dated 25.02.2009 passed in T.R. Case No. 295 of 2007. On acquittal of the petitioner, the opposite parties vide order dated 20.11.2009 dropped the departmental proceedings and exonerated him from all charges and the period of suspension was treated as duty. After the departmental proceeding was dropped, on 23.11.2009, the petitioner was given promotion to E-3 grade w.e.f. 30.08.2008, even though the petitioner had been discharging his duties as Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) from 08.11.2004. Although in the gradation list-Annexure-13 dated 07.12.2006, the petitioner was placed at serial no. 32, one Ashok Kumar Nayak, who was about 8 years junior to the petitioner and was placed at serial no. 58, was given promotion to E-3 grade much prior to the petitioner, i.e., w.e.f. 08.11.2004. Similarly, one Manas Ranjan Mohanty, even though was allowed to discharge the duty of SDO (unlike the present petitioner), w.e.f. 18.10.2003, was regularized in the said post of E-3 grade, w.e.f. 30.01.2004, but the petitioner has been discriminated. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he should be allowed to continue in E-3 grade w.e.f. 08.11.2004 instead of 30.08.2008, hence this application. Similarly, one Manas Ranjan Mohanty, even though was allowed to discharge the duty of SDO (unlike the present petitioner), w.e.f. 18.10.2003, was regularized in the said post of E-3 grade, w.e.f. 30.01.2004, but the petitioner has been discriminated. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he should be allowed to continue in E-3 grade w.e.f. 08.11.2004 instead of 30.08.2008, hence this application. 3. Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that, while considering the promotion from E-2 to E-3 grade, the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Post and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 (for short “ORV Act”), which is applicable to the opposite party-organization, has been completely given a goby. More so, when one Ashok Kumar Nayak, who is 8 years juniors to the petitioner, has been given promotion w.e.f. 06.11.2004, there is no valid and justifiable reason to give promotion to the petitioner to E-3 grade w.e.f. 30.08.2008. It is further contended that since the petitioner has already got promotion to E-3 grade vide order dated 23.11.2009, giving effect from 30.08.2008, he only claims that such benefit be extended from the date his junior has been promoted to E-3 grade, i.e., from 08.11.2004, or by applying the provisions contained in the ORV Act. 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 argued with vehemence that the claim made by the petitioner is not admissible in view of the fact that mere functioning as in-charge shall not entitle anyone to claim benefit attached to the assigned post. To support such contention, he relied upon the order dated 23.07.2008 of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 8192 of 2008, wherein it was held that if an employee being Lineman-A remained in charge of the Section, he could not claim the benefits of the Jr. Engineer and after joining of the Jr. Engineer in that Section, his return to the post of Lineman-A could not be construed to be reversion, and hence there was no cause of action to maintain the writ petition. Applying the said principle to the present case, even though the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of E-3 grade, as SDO in-charge, that ipso facto cannot entitle him to get the benefit of promotion from grade E-2 to E-3. Applying the said principle to the present case, even though the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of E-3 grade, as SDO in-charge, that ipso facto cannot entitle him to get the benefit of promotion from grade E-2 to E-3. The petitioner’s grievance by way of representation to give promotion to E-3 grade w.e.f. 08.11.2004 was not considered, since vigilance case was subjudice before the appropriate forum. So far as promotion of Ashok Kumar Nayak is concerned, it is contended that, even though he was junior to the petitioner and was continuing as SDO in-charge, Dhamnagar, as because he had completed AMIE since 01.05.2005, as per promotion policy his case was put up on 01.08.2006 before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which found him suitable for promotion to E-3 grade because of acquisition of higher qualification and, consequentially, such benefit was extended to him. In respect of Manas Ranajn Mohanty, who was S.D.O. in-charge on 18.10.2003 and whose services were regularized in the said post w.e.f. 30.01.2004, it stated that he was much senior to the petitioner, since he joined the service in the year 1989 whereas petitioner joined in the year 1993. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit as claimed in the writ application. 5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 supported the contention raised by Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.3. 6. Heard Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and perused the record. Since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 7. In order to regulate the service conditions of the employees of the GRIDCO, “GRIDCO Officer’s Promotion Policy” was framed under Clause-8 and 11 of the GRIDCO Officers Service Regulations. The objectives of such promotion policy were to provide opportunity in growth and career prospects by ensuring fairness, consistency and uniformity in the matters of promotion, to recognize and reward officers for their contribution to the growth of the Company, and to sustain the high morale of the Officers by informing them of the career opportunities existing in the Company. The objectives of such promotion policy were to provide opportunity in growth and career prospects by ensuring fairness, consistency and uniformity in the matters of promotion, to recognize and reward officers for their contribution to the growth of the Company, and to sustain the high morale of the Officers by informing them of the career opportunities existing in the Company. Clause-3 deals with coverage and clause-4 deals with guiding principles. Clause-5 deals with criteria for promotion, wherein it has been specifically stated in clause-5.1 that merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority shall be the criteria for promotion. As per clause-5.2, all promotions are subject to availability of vacancies and needs of the Company in respect of grades/disciplines. Clause-6 deals with eligibility and clause-6.1 provides that the years of service in a grade shall be called as the eligibility period for consideration of promotion to the next higher grade. Clause-6.3 envisages minimum eligibility period for consideration of promotion to different grades. Promotion from grade E-2 to E-3, being the subject-matter of consideration in the case at hand, the relevant part of Claue-6.3 is quoted hereunder: Grade The minimum years service in the grade of From From E2 E3 5 Years xx xx xx Under Clause-6.4 it has been clarified that the officers not possessing the prescribed qualification under the GRIDCO Officers Recruitment Policy for entry into E-3 level shall not be considered for promotion beyond E3 level. Clause-7.3 deals with “Engineering”, and clause 7.3.4, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, is extracted hereunder: “7.3.4 The number of vacancies to be filled up by promotion of Jr. Manager (EI) in E-2 to the post of Asst. Manager (EI) in E-3 shall be so fixed that the promoted Jr. Engineers do not exceed 33% the total no of posts of Asst. Managers (EI). Provided further that 5% of the total no. of posts of Asst. Manager (EI) shall be filled up by Manager (EI) with degree in engineering in case such candidates are available in E-2. Provided further that the Jr. Engineers who are diploma holders in engineering but have completed at least 10 years of services shall not be considered for promotion. Provided further that 5% of the total no. of posts of Asst. Manager (EI) shall be filled up by Manager (EI) with degree in engineering in case such candidates are available in E-2. Provided further that the Jr. Engineers who are diploma holders in engineering but have completed at least 10 years of services shall not be considered for promotion. Notwithstanding the above, the candidates possessing qualification prescribed for direct recruitment shall also be eligible to offer themselves for Departmental Recruitment in accordance with GRIDCO Officers Recruitment Policy.” Clause-8 of GRIDCO Officers Promotion Policy, which deals with zone of consideration, reads thus: “8. ZONE OF CONSIDERATION: 8.1. Based upon the vacancies to be filled up in a Cadre/Discipline, a maximum of three Officers the basis of Seniority against a vacancy shall be considered for promotion. 8.2. However, the ratio of consideration as mentioned at 8.1 above shall be raised to a maximum or such other ratio as may be prescribed in order to consider the eligible SC/ST officers under provisions of ORV Act. In such consideration only the SC/ST officers shall be included in the consideration list. Officers belonging to other castes beyond the ratio of 1.3 are to be excluded. 8.3 Promotion of SC/ST officers shall be made as per the Roster Position. In the process if any SC/ST officer being junior to other categories of officers is promoted against the Roster Point this shall not be treated as violation of these rules.” (Emphasis supplied) In Clause-8.2, as quoted above, it has been specifically mentioned that the ratio of consideration as mentioned at Clause-8.1 shall be raised to a maximum or such other ratio as may be prescribed in order to consider the eligible Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe (ST) officers under provisions of ORV Act. Therefore, it leaves no room for doubt that the provisions of ORV Act are applicable to the SC and ST Officers, while considering for promotion, for determination of zone of consideration. 8. The aforementioned GRIDCO Officers Promotion Policy has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the NESCO in its 5th meeting dated 24.10.1998. In the minutes of the 5th meeting of the Board of Directors Resolution dated 24.10.1998, as against item no. 8. The aforementioned GRIDCO Officers Promotion Policy has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the NESCO in its 5th meeting dated 24.10.1998. In the minutes of the 5th meeting of the Board of Directors Resolution dated 24.10.1998, as against item no. 7, which deals with adoption of service regulations, practices and procedures of GRIDCO, it was resolved as follows: “RESOLVED THAT the service regulations of GRIDCO concerning executives and non-executives including those of Circle and Division cadre be and are hereby approved for adoption in the company till such time the company frames its own service regulations for its employees and that the service regulations so adopted shall apply mutatis & mutandis to all the employees who will be transferred from GRIDCO to NESCO in pursuance of transfer arrangement agreed between GRIDCO and NESCO.” “RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the practices and procedures followed by GRIDCO on the basis of various Govt. codes, orders, circulars as well as the practices and procedures prescribed by the Board of GRIDCO together with the General Condition of Supply Regulations. delegation of financial and administrative powers and responsibility to officers as different levels are approved for adoption in the company till such time they are varied and annulled by the Board of Directors of NESCO.” There is thus no iota of doubt that GRIDCO Officers Promotion Policy, as discussed above, mutatis and mutandis applies to the employees of NESCO, under which the petitioner has been rendering service, pursuant to adoption of the same by the Board of Directors in its resolution dated 24.10.1998. Consequentially, in respect of the petitioner, who is belonging to ST category, the provisions of the ORV Act should have been made applicable, while considering his case for promotion. 9. The petitioner, being a ST category candidate, obviously he is entitled to claim benefit of reservation available under ORV Act. The word “reservation” has attained a particular legal significance in matters relating to public employment. The concept is founded on separating individuals or groups having certain characteristics (‘pertaining to backwardness’) from the general category of candidates and conferring on them the benefit of special treatment. 10. The word “reservation” has attained a particular legal significance in matters relating to public employment. The concept is founded on separating individuals or groups having certain characteristics (‘pertaining to backwardness’) from the general category of candidates and conferring on them the benefit of special treatment. 10. MARC GALANTER in its “Competing Equalities-Law and Backward Classes in India (Introduction)”, 1984 edition states as follows: “It is discrimination made in favour of the backward classes vis-à-vis the citizens in general and has been referred to as compensatory discrimination or reverse discrimination or protective discrimination. Our constitution expressly recognizes the necessity for such discrimination in matters relating to public employment and confers power on the State to make reservations covering important aspects of public employment including appointments in particular. The constitution envisages a balance between the rights of the backward classes and the general stream. 11. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh, (1981) 1 SCC 246 Justice Krishna Iyer has elaborately dealt with issue of reservation and stated:- “to correct inherited imbalances must not be an overkill.” 12. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 , the apex Court held:- “affirmative action stops where reverse discrimination begins.” 13. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 the apex Court considered historical background, reasons and justifications for such reservation have been exhaustively dealt with by nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Taking into account the above parameters and applying the same to the present context, if the promotion policy specifically prescribes for applicability of ORV Act, non-application of the said provision amounts to violation of constitutional mandate. 14. As such, in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.3, it has been specifically stated at paragraph-14 as follows: “That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph17 of writ petition, it is pertinent to mention here that ORV Act is not applicable to the private Organization.” Such pleading of opposite party no.3 states how the authority has very susceptibly tried to avoid the answer with regard to the applicability of ORV Act in the matter of promotion of Executives under the opposite parties. Though the extant promotion policy specifically states that ORV Act is applicable in the matter of promotion, the pleading of opposite party no.3, that ORV Act is not applicable to private organization, dehors the policy framed by the opposite parties. 15. Though the extant promotion policy specifically states that ORV Act is applicable in the matter of promotion, the pleading of opposite party no.3, that ORV Act is not applicable to private organization, dehors the policy framed by the opposite parties. 15. In the facts and circumstances, by making a bald statement that ORV Act is not applicable to the private organization, the right of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of reservation cannot be taken away in view of the fact that the Board of Directors of NESCO in its resolution dated 24.10.1998, while approving the promotion policy, has adopted the applicability of ORV Act in the matter of promotion of GRIDCO Officers. Therefore, non-extension of benefits under the ORV Act to the petitioner is, not only contrary to the constitutional mandate, but also its own policy of promotion adopted by opposite party no.3. In such view of the matter, this Court holds that opposite party no.3 is duty bound to follow the principles enshrined in ORV Act in the matter of promotion of its employees. 16. Next question is to be considered, whether junior to the petitioner has been promoted to E-3 grade much prior to the date the petitioner was given promotion. As it appears from paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit, opposite party no.3 has specifically admitted that some of the juniors of the petitioner had been given promotion to E-3 grade much prior to the petitioner and that Ashok Kumar Nayak, who was junior to the petitioner in the gradation list and continued as SDO in-charge, Dhamnagar, had been promoted to E-3 grade, because he had completed AMIE since 01.05.2005 and, as such, the DPC considered and recommended his case for promotion on 01.08.2006 and accordingly the benefit was extended to him. 17. As per the gradation list, Ashok Kumar Nayak was junior to the petitioner. As such, he has been given promotion on acquisition of AMIE qualification. But, the extant promotion policy does not provide to give promotion to the AMIE or the Degree Engineers to the next higher posts, i.e., from E-2 to E-3 grade on acquisition of such qualification. The only prescription in the policy is that one has to render minimum five years service in E-2 grade to be entitled for promotion to E-3 grade. The only prescription in the policy is that one has to render minimum five years service in E-2 grade to be entitled for promotion to E-3 grade. Taking into consideration the initial appointment of the petitioner 1993, he, having completed five years in 1998, was eligible for promotion to E-3 grade, but the case of the petitioner was not taken into consideration because of pendency of the vigilance case against him. 18. The law is fairly settled in plethora of decisions of this Court, as well as the apex Court that pendency of criminal case or a departmental proceeding cannot disentitle a person to be considered for promotion. Had the case of the petitioner been considered in proper time, he would have been promoted to E-3 grade much earlier. If vigilance case was pending against the petitioner, his promotion, if found otherwise eligible, could have been kept in sealed cover, and on exoneration from the charges of the departmental proceeding and the criminal case, by opening the sealed cover he would have been given the benefit. But, such procedure has not been adopted in the instant case. In any case, the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, is otherwise entitled to get the benefit of promotion from the date his junior has been promoted from grade E-2 to E-3. As has been already stated, in the meantime the petitioner has already been promoted to E-3 grade. He is only entitled to get the consequential financial benefits for the differential period and continuity in promotional post so as to entitle him to be considered for next promotion. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delineated above, this Court is of the considered view that applying the provisions of the ORV Act, the petitioner’s case for promotion be considered in terms of the extant promotion policy of opposite party no.3 or he may be extended with the benefit of promotion from the date his junior has been promoted by granting all consequential service benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 20. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost.