JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to grant E6 Grade promotion to the petitioner at least with effect from the date her juniors have been promoted, including Mr. Biswabash Behuria promoted w.e.f. 20.09.2013 and effective date of her promotion to all the earlier grades be amended in the like manner so as to make it at par with her juniors and due corrections be made in the service records correcting her due dates of entry into the successive grades as per her seniority position in All India Merit List (Annexure-2) and Global Seniority List of E-1 (Annexure-4) with all consequential benefits. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Welfare Officer (Trainee) in Coal India Limited (in short ‘CIL’) vide appointment letter dated 11.06.1994. It was stipulated in the appointment letter that she will be on training for a period of 2 years. During the said training period, she was to be paid pay scale of E1 Grade with other allowances admissible to the Executives of CIL (Clause 3.2) and also eligible for leave etc. as mentioned in Schedule-II (Clause 3.4). Schedule II to the appointment letter provided for various categories of leave, including extraordinary leave to be granted after the casual or medical leave would get exhausted and Clause 4 of the same, stipulated about appointment to regular post carrying higher pay scale for a period of 1 year on probation, after completion of training. In the same year i.e. 1994 All India Merit List for Welfare Officers (Trainee) was published in which the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 11 and inter se seniority of the persons in the merit list should be governed by their position in the panel. Subsequently, the petitioner joined on 23.06.1994 and was given posting in Central Coalfields Ltd. (in short ‘CCL’) vide office order dated 09.07.1994. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 03.09.1996, a Global Seniority List as on 24.04.1996 in E-1 Grade was issued by CIL in which the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.78 and the seniority position was duly set out in accordance with the position in the original All India Merit List. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 03.09.1996, a Global Seniority List as on 24.04.1996 in E-1 Grade was issued by CIL in which the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.78 and the seniority position was duly set out in accordance with the position in the original All India Merit List. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed/promoted to E 2 and E3 Grades, which were in the nature of Cluster Promotion and not vacancy based and as such, not affected by the inter se seniority position. On 15.02.2010, the promotion to E4 Grade was granted to the petitioner by CIL and also notified by CCL on 19.02.2010, which was the first vacancy based promotion. Later on the Grades were re-designated and the old E4 Grade re-designated as E5 and E5 as E6. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the provisional seniority list for E 5 (new/revised) issued on 02.05.2016, the petitioner was at Sr. No. 41, whereas the name of one Mr. Biswabash Behuria was shown at Sr. No.2, But the said Biswabash Behuria is much junior to the petitioner in the Global Seniority list of E1 Grade, dated 03.09.1996 in which Mr. Behuria figured at Sr. No. 120 and the petitioner was at Sr. No. 78. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before the respondents on 06.10.2016 and on 12.12.2016, but no heed was paid. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the meantime, Mr. Behuria, who was posted at Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., another subsidiary of CIL was being subjected to adverse effect on seniority owing to few days of being on leave without pay during his training period and aggrieved by the same, he approached the Hon’ble Orissa High Court and where some relief was granted to him. The petitioner also understood that her seniority was being made to be affected adversely on account of the fact that she had likewise been on leave without pay for a few days during her training period, which was due to maternity reasons and on strict advise of Gynecologist for bed confinement. She had been on extraordinary leave without pay but it was sanctioned and authorized leave. 4. It is specific case of the petitioner that Mr. She had been on extraordinary leave without pay but it was sanctioned and authorized leave. 4. It is specific case of the petitioner that Mr. Behuria has been promoted to E6 Grade (new) vide order dated 20.02.2017, but the petitioner has not been granted the said promotion so far understandably due to her position in the seniority list, which has been incorrectly maintained by the respondents. As the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion in E 6 Grade as well as to amendment in the effective date of promotion in the previous Grade atleast w.e.f. the date the same has been granted to juniors to the petitioner including Mr. Behuria, she has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of her grievances. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitled for E 6 Grade promotion at least with effect from the date when the juniors to her have been granted the same benefits, including Mr. Behuria and the effective date of her promotion to all the earlier grades be amended in the like manner so as to make it at par with her juniors and due corrections be made in the service records as per her seniority position in All India Merit List and Global Seniority List of E 1 Grade. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that the stand, which is taken by the respondents for adversely affecting her seniority position, namely her being on leave without pay for a few days during her training is completely untenable in the eyes of law as she was on leave for maternity reasons. Since the permissible period earmarked for all other leaves had expired therefore, she had taken extraordinary leave, which is duly recognized and permissible leave under the Leave Rules and also stipulated in Schedule II to the appointment letter. The extraordinary leave was treated as leave without pay, nevertheless it was a duly sanctioned leave and by no means an unauthorized leave. Moreover, there was no provision in the service rules or appointment letter applicable to the petitioner under which such leave without pay could affect one’s seniority. The extraordinary leave was treated as leave without pay, nevertheless it was a duly sanctioned leave and by no means an unauthorized leave. Moreover, there was no provision in the service rules or appointment letter applicable to the petitioner under which such leave without pay could affect one’s seniority. Furthermore, the provisions and the principles of Maternity Benefit Act should be taken as a guiding factor, Section 12 whereof prohibits varying the service conditions of a woman if she absented herself from service in accordance with law. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner has suffered gross violation of her Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well monetary prejudices making out violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that the case of the petitioner is also on similar footing as of Mr. Biswabash Behuria as the petitioner was on leave without pay (owing to maternity reasons) during her training period, as she had no other leave to avail and Mr. Behuria was also on leave without pay during his training period (for the reasons specific to his life, which makes no difference in the matter of consideration of subject matter of the lis and comparison between the two inter se. This happened, in case of both, sometime during the training period. Learned Sr. counsel further contended that Mr. Behuria has been granted due promotion eventually pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Orissa High Court. The petitioner may not be having any such order in her favour, but the fact remains that the case of the petitioner stands at similar footing with that of Mr. Behuria in so far as the existence of substantive rights is covered and in so far as the violation of those rights is concerned, one is entitled to appropriate remedies when the existence of right and its violation is established ubi jus ibi remedium. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that upon such correction just as has been done with Mr. Biswabash Behuria as is reflected in the order dated 16.03.2016, the petitioner’s deemed date in all Grade should be consequently revised. In support of his contention, learned Sr. counsel places heavy reliance on Hon’ble Orissa High Court judgment in case of Biswabash Behuria Vs. Chairman, Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Biswabash Behuria as is reflected in the order dated 16.03.2016, the petitioner’s deemed date in all Grade should be consequently revised. In support of his contention, learned Sr. counsel places heavy reliance on Hon’ble Orissa High Court judgment in case of Biswabash Behuria Vs. Chairman, Coal India Ltd. & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) No. 16294 of 2008] and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.J. Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 72 . 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the petitioner is on a different footing from that of Mr. Biswabash Behuria and the petitioner cannot equate herself with that of Mr. Behuria. The petitioner has neither been discriminated nor any right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. Learned counsel further argues that Mr. Behuria’s training period was extended on the grounds of being on leave without pay and subsequent delayed placement in E2 Grade, thus impacting his seniority in E4/E5 Grade and claim of E 6 Grade at par with immediate junior of same Batch, which was challenged by him, by way of a writ petition before the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.16294 of 2008, the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2014 with a direction upon the respondents to record the deemed date of entry of the said petitioner in service in E2 Grade as 24.06.1996 instead of 01.08.1996 as per Clause 17.1 of the Agreement and extend all the benefits as due and admissible to him in conformity with the provisions of law. Learned counsel further argues that the employee can avail maternity leave for the period permissible and at the relevant time, maternity leave permissible for the petitioner was 90 days +30 days additional seek leave, which can be availed for treatment of ailment arising out of such maternity. The petitioner had instead availed the leave of 184 days. The leave had been first availed and subsequently regularized by CCL and the maximum possible leave on account of maternity i.e. 04 months was already availed by the petitioner and only the left over leave has been granted as leave without pay. The petitioner had instead availed the leave of 184 days. The leave had been first availed and subsequently regularized by CCL and the maximum possible leave on account of maternity i.e. 04 months was already availed by the petitioner and only the left over leave has been granted as leave without pay. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case of Mr. Behuria was different. Learned counsel further argues that in compliance of the order dated 26th September, 2014 passed by Hon’ble Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.16294 of 2008, CIL has issued an order dated 14.03.2016, wherein the deemed date of promotion of Mr. Behuria was revised. Learned counsel further argues that Mr. Behuria has filed writ petition at the time when the cause of action has been arisen in the year, 2008, but the petitioner did not file any writ petition in the year, 2008, rather a writ is filed by the petitioner in the year, 2017 claiming parity with Mr. Behuria. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, Mr. Behuria was senior to the petitioner in seniority list as per All India Merit List and Global Seniority List, no reasons have been assigned as to why Mr. Behuria was shown senior to the petitioner on 1st March, 2016, under what circumstances, a revised seniority list was prepared on 14th March, 2016 and what was the reason for changing the seniority list. In the year, 2018, again seniority list was revised and Mr. Behuria was shown senior to the petitioner. No document is brought on record to show that if any objection has been invited before making such change in the seniority list. It is settled principles of law that any change in the gradation list without inviting objections, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and any list prepared in compete violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice is not tenable in the eyes of law. The petitioner cannot be discriminated on the ground of technicalities. 9. Mr. Behuria has been considered and granted promotion, whereas, same benefits have been denied to the petitioner despite her being standing on the similar footing. It is the case of Mr. The petitioner cannot be discriminated on the ground of technicalities. 9. Mr. Behuria has been considered and granted promotion, whereas, same benefits have been denied to the petitioner despite her being standing on the similar footing. It is the case of Mr. Behuria, as admitted by the respondents that he was granted leave without pay during his training period for 35 days and the petitioner was also on leave without pay for 24 days. If the case of Mr. Behuria has been considered by the respondents, there is no occasion as to why the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and granted similar relief. The deemed entry in E2 Grade as 24.06.1996 instead of 14.07.1996 is also applicable in case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.16294 of 2008, the petitioner is also entitled for similar treatment as given to that petitioner i.e. Mr. Behuria by fixing a deemed date of his entry into E2 Grade 24.06.1996 instead of 14.07.1996. The denial of promotion to the petitioner from the said date is arbitrary, illegal and not in consonance with the relevant provisions as envisaged in the Rules. The respondents cannot be permitted to act dehors the rules, the same yardstick has to be adopted in case of the petitioner, which has been adopted in case of Mr. Behuria. There cannot be two para meters for granting promotion and that also to a person, who was senior in the gradation list at the entry level than the aforesaid person, who has been granted promotion. 10. The order of Hon’ble Orissa High Court has attained finality as review petition filed by the respondents also stood dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the similar benefits, which has been granted to Mr. Behuria. In view of the order passed by Hon’ble Orissa High Court, the stand of the respondents that petitioner did not move before the Court is not acceptable to this Court. The petitioner is entitled for promotion to E6 Grade from the date his junior has been considered and granted the said benefits. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.J. Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 72 has held under :- “37. The petitioner is entitled for promotion to E6 Grade from the date his junior has been considered and granted the said benefits. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.J. Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 72 has held under :- “37. Before parting with the case, we consider it opposite to state that this case reminds us of the subtle observations made by Justice M.C. Chagla, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in Firm Kaluram Sitaram Vs. The Dominion of India MANU/MH/OOO8-1954 : AIR 1954 Bombay. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing held as under :- 19…. We have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest persons….” 12. But one thing is far too well settled to be disputed that right to be considered for promotion flows from the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. In C.O. Arumugam and others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in (1991) (Supp.) 2 SCC page 129, the Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that consideration for promotion can only be postponed on reasonable ground. In the instant case, no reasonable ground has been shown as to why the case of the petitioner for promotion has not been considered though the person junior to her has been considered and granted promotion. 13. Further, the Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Chittaranjan Kumar Buernevey Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 731 held in para Nos. 28 & 29, which is reproduced hereinbelow :- 28. Therefore, the question is whether an employer is free to defer at its sweet will the consideration of an incumbent’s case of promotion when the vacancy occurs and when the person whose case is ripe for consideration is making repeated representations for such consideration of his case. 28 & 29, which is reproduced hereinbelow :- 28. Therefore, the question is whether an employer is free to defer at its sweet will the consideration of an incumbent’s case of promotion when the vacancy occurs and when the person whose case is ripe for consideration is making repeated representations for such consideration of his case. If the answer is given by this Court in affirmative then an employer would be put in the position of being an ‘imperium in imperio.’ Under the constitutional set up no body can claim that position. On the other hand, the Apex Court is constantly harping on the fact that the governmental authorities in keeping with the concept of a Welfare State should act as a model employer. Acting as a model employer, implies that persons who are entitled to be considered for promotion at the time when the vacancy occurs ought to be so considered in accordance with law and they must know where they stand. Therefore, a fair consideration of case for promotion implies a timely consideration and not a belated one or at any time when the employer thinks it fit. As the employee has a fundamental right of having his case for promotion considered fairly, similarly the employer has an obligation to do it objectively. There is no scope for a subjective approach in this area. So the authority must remember that in considering an employee’s case for promotion, it is undertaking an exercise in the context of certain constitutional imperatives. And it is expected that the authority must act with a due sense of responsibility and in an objective manner and in such cases always there is an accountability attached to its action. So the authority cannot take the stand, as it has taken in the impugned order that it will consider the case for promotion ‘when it thinks fit’. The impugned order thus betrays a clear lack of perception on the part of the authorities about its duties in this respect. 29. This Court is of the view that discipline in public service is not a one way traffic. The impugned order thus betrays a clear lack of perception on the part of the authorities about its duties in this respect. 29. This Court is of the view that discipline in public service is not a one way traffic. If the authorities expect discipline and dedication form the employees, they must also adhere to some discipline in the discharge of duties and obligations and as a model employer one such obligation is to consider the eligible employees for promotion in accordance with the rules and within a reasonable time when vacancies in the promotional post occur. 14. From the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the opinion that case of the petitioner is fully covered by the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court and the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits as has been given to that of Mr. Biswabash Behuria as the case of Mr. Behuria and petitioner stands on similar footing. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take a decision, within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Needless to say if the petitioner is found to be entitled for the same benefits, which has been extended to Mr. Behuria, the same shall be extended to the petitioner, within a further period of four weeks with all consequential benefits. 16. The writ petition is therefore, allowed in terms of the directions and observations to the extent indicated above.