JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has sought for promotion from E3 to E4, E5 and M1 Grade, with effect from the year 1988, 1991 and 1994 respectively or from the date persons junior to the petitioner like Dr. Swapan Chaterjee etc. has been granted promotion and to give the monetary benefits and for fixation of the reitral benefits on the revised promotional scale along with arrears in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No.404/2010 and Civil Review No.14/2011 arising out of W.P.(S) No.5779/2009. The petitioner has further prayed for payment of full salary after deducting the subsistence allowance from the date of suspension i.e. 28.02.1996 till date of revocation of suspension i.e. 01.12.1992 with interest and further prayer has been made for interest on Gratuity for the period from 01.09.2009 to 27.05.2011 in terms of Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1872 since the petitioner retired on 31.07.2009 but his gratuity was released on 27.05.2011. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner joined his services at Bharat Cocking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as “BCCL”) in the year 1980 as a Medical Officer and subsequently he was promoted as Senior Medical Officer in E3 Grade in the year 1985. While continuing as such, an F.I.R was lodged on 12.02.1986 and the petitioner was arrested. Upon his arrest, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 24.02.1986 and the said suspension was revoked on 01.12.1992. The petitioner was convicted in Dhanbad R.C Case No.4(A)/86 (D) vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2006 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I, Dhanbad and thereafter the petitioner was removed from service on 02.07.2007. The order of conviction was set aside in Cr. Appeal No.1443 of 2006 vide judgment dated 07.11.2007. After acquittal in Cr. Appeal No.1443 of 2006 the petitioner submitted representation before the disciplinary authority through proper channel on 06.12.2007 for his reinstatement with effect from the date of removal i.e. 02.07.2007. On the basis of decision taken by the appellate authority, the disciplinary authority-respondent no.2 vide order dated 09.07.2009 communicated to the petitioner the decision of the Board of Director regarding reinstatement with effect from 07.11.2007. On the basis of decision taken by the appellate authority, the disciplinary authority-respondent no.2 vide order dated 09.07.2009 communicated to the petitioner the decision of the Board of Director regarding reinstatement with effect from 07.11.2007. It is also mentioned in the said order that petitioner would not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits for the intervening period i.e. from the date of removal from service till the date of joining after reinstatement, as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the condition in the order of reinstatement, the petitioner knocked the door of the Hon’ble Court in W.P(S) No.5779 of 2009 and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.08.2010 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 09.07.2009 holding therein that the petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated in service from the date of removal i.e. 02.07.2007 with all pecuniary benefits and all consequential benefits. Against the order dated 03.08.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5779 of 2009, L.P.A No.404 of 2010 was preferred by the respondent and the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to grant only 50% of the pecuniary benefits from the date of acquittal instead of all pecuniary benefits, but for all other purposes notional continuity was granted. Subsequently, petitioner preferred review petition being Civil Review No.14 of 2011 against the L.P.A and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.03.2011 and the word acquittal has been replaced with removal. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2009 as Senior Medical Officer in E3 Grade. Since the order of the Hon’ble Court was not complied, Cont. Case (Civil) No.744 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner and during pendency gratuity was paid on 27.05.2011 without statutory interest and the same was supposed to be paid with effect from 01.09.2009 as per Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1872. Finally, the contempt application was dropped by a detailed order dated 06.12.2013 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance by filing appropriate writ application as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner’s position in the seniority list of E2 Grade was at Serial No.46 whereas the Serial no.47, 48 and 49 have been given promotion up to M1 Grade but the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner’s position in the seniority list of E2 Grade was at Serial No.46 whereas the Serial no.47, 48 and 49 have been given promotion up to M1 Grade but the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. The guidelines/rules for promotion in the Medical discipline published and followed by CIL has been brought on record vide Annexure-6 to the writ application. According to the petitioner as per the requirements of qualification given in the rules/guidelines of CIL, the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion on different grades from E3 to E4, E4 to E5 and thereafter E5 to E6 with effect from different dates, at least from the date juniors to the petitioner have been granted such promotion. Being aggrieved by in action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to file the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that on the basis of qualification and experience, the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion in view of the fact that juniors have been given promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of clean acquittal in the criminal case and continuity of services, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents not to grant promotion to the petitioner from the date juniors were given promotion. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the salary for the period of suspension i.e. 24.02.1986 to 01.12.1992 minus subsistence allowance is payable and further petitioner is entitled to gratuity as per Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for promotion to the different dates, juniors were given promotion. 4. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , (2007) 6 SCC 524 (Para-4), (2007) 1 SCC 566 (para-16 & 17), 2007 (2) SCC 433 (Para 19 & 20). During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 26.3 and 34 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 of the Coal India Limited. 5. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 26.3 and 34 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 of the Coal India Limited. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Promotion cannot be a consequence of reinstatement. The promotion depends on availability of vacancy and recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee. There was no direction by this Hon’ble Court in the previous writ petition or in the letters patent appeal for giving promotion to the petitioner. Moreover, because of the conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case, he became disqualified to continue in services and the petitioner continued disqualification till his acquittal in the criminal case. This criminal case was not instituted at the behest of the Management but the said case was instituted by the C.B.I. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim for consideration of his promotion with effect from date during which the petitioner was not in service, because at the relevant time, he was suffering disqualification for continuing in service, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any promotion because of the above facts and also as per cadre scheme, promotion can be made effective on resuming the charge in the promoted grade which the petitioner cannot do and at present as he has been superannuated from service of the Company. Further, it has been submitted that in the earlier writ application, the petitioner claimed for promotion from E2 to M1 but the Hon’ble Court in the judgment dated 03.08.2010 did not consider such plea and, therefore, the instant writ petition with similar prayer is not maintainable. Apart from that after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court, the following payments have been made to the petitioner: S. No. Type of Retirement Amount (In Rs.) 1. Gratuity 10,00,000.00 2. C.M.P.F 27,65,246.00 3. Arrears of Pension 3,97,440.00 4. Monthly Pension Fixed 12,420.00 5. Arrears of Pay Revision 47,495.00 6. Leave Encashment 79,832.00 7. Arrears of Salary 5,79,370.00 6. So far as gratuity is concerned, the same has been paid as per the rules. The claim of interest on gratuity is also not sustainable nor there was any direction in this regard by this Hon’ble Court. Monthly Pension Fixed 12,420.00 5. Arrears of Pay Revision 47,495.00 6. Leave Encashment 79,832.00 7. Arrears of Salary 5,79,370.00 6. So far as gratuity is concerned, the same has been paid as per the rules. The claim of interest on gratuity is also not sustainable nor there was any direction in this regard by this Hon’ble Court. It has further been submitted that so far as seniority list and promotion of juniors as claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee from 1989 to 1993. But at the relevant time, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner as he was under suspension and was suffering a criminal proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433 (Para-17), (2011) 13 SCC 27 (Para-6, 7 and 14). 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it transpires that while continuing in E3 Grade (Senior Medical Officer) petitioner was suspended from services on being arrested in C.B.I. case on 24.02.1986 and he was reinstated and suspension order was revoked on 01.02.1992. Subsequently, the petitioner was removed from services on 02.07.2007 on account of conviction in the criminal case. On 07.11.2007, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. On 09.07.2009 petitioner was reinstated in service. Though, application was filed by the petitioner for his reinstatement after acquittal in the criminal case in the year 2007. After order of reinstatement, the petitioner joined his services on 17.07.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2009 as Senior Medical Officer in E3 Grade from Central Hospital, Mahendragarh, Haldeo Area, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh. The petitioner challenged the order of reinstatement in W.P.(S) No.5779 of 2010 which was allowed vide order dated 03.08.2010 and the order of reinstatement was set aside and order was passed for reinstatement from the date of removal i.e. 02.07.2007. Against the same, the respondents preferred L.P.A. No.404 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by modifying to the extent of 50% of the pecuniary benefits from the date of removal with all notional continuity of service. Against the same, the respondents preferred L.P.A. No.404 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by modifying to the extent of 50% of the pecuniary benefits from the date of removal with all notional continuity of service. Since the order was not complied a Contempt Case (Civil) No.744 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioner. Subsequently, the said contempt was dropped on 06.12.2013 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it is to be seen as to whether in the instant writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as has been sought for in the writ petition. So far as promotion of the petitioner from E3 Grade to E4, E5, and E6, the same is considered as per the required qualification and as per the rules/guidelines of the CIL. 10. In the earlier writ petition, the petitioner came up with the prayer for promotion and no specific direction has been passed for consideration of his promotion. Moreover, the promotion depends on host of factors, such as, the eligibility of candidate, the availability of vacancies and the recommendation of the Departmental promotion Committee as per the guidelines in vogue. There is no denying of the fact that the petitioner was under suspension and was accused in the criminal case, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee, though considered the case of the petitioner from 1989 to 1993 but did not recommend the case of the petitioner as disclosed from the counter affidavit. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the respondents for not giving promotion to the different grades from the date juniors were given promotion because of criminal proceeding. 11. So far as prayer of the petitioner for salary during suspension period from 24.02.1986 to 01.12.1992 is concerned, it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant rules of Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 of the Coal India Limited, which is applicable to the case of the petitioner. Relevant provision for treatment of the period of suspension, is herein extracted below: “26.3 Where the Authority competent to order revocation is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the employee shall, subject to sub-rule (8), be paid full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. Relevant provision for treatment of the period of suspension, is herein extracted below: “26.3 Where the Authority competent to order revocation is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the employee shall, subject to sub-rule (8), be paid full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. Provided that where such authority is of the opinion” that the termination of proceedings against the employee had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the employee it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within thirty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the employee shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine. The pay and allowances so determined should not be less than the subsistence allowance already paid to the employee.” 12. On perusal of the aforesaid provision and in view of the fact that petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and the fact that order of suspension has been revoked on 01.12.1992, there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner will not be entitled for the salary for period of suspension from 24.02.1986 to 01.12.1992 minus the subsistence allowance already paid. With regard to the prayer for grant of gratuity for the period from 01.09.2009 to 27.05.2011, it would be apposite to refer to the Section 7(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. “7(3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity, within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.” The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2009 and the gratuity has been released on 27.05.2011, therefore, as per the aforesaid gratuity provision, the petitioner is entitled to interest of gratuity from 01.09.2009 to 27.05.2011. 13. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of promotion from E3 Grade to E4, E5, E6 and M1 Grade is declined. 13. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of promotion from E3 Grade to E4, E5, E6 and M1 Grade is declined. However, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders for payment of salary for the period of suspension from 28.02.1986 to 01.12.1992 and for payment of interest on gratuity from 01.09.2009 to 27.05.2011 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order and the monetary benefits accruing thereto be paid within the aforesaid period. 14. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the writ petition stands partly allowed. Petition partly allowed.