JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the writ petitions relate to the same petitioner but arise out of different orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A./051/00109/2016 and O.A./051/00219/2016 respectively, both dated 07.07.2017. For easy reference, the reliefs prayed for in the respective original applications are extracted hereunder: OA. No. 051/00109/2016 in W.P.(S) No. 6283 of 2017 i. For quashing the order no 216 dated 2/3.3. 2015 red by the Deputy General Manager (Mines), Steel Authority of India Limited, Raw Material Division Mines, Bhawnathpur, Limestone Bhawnathpur District Garhwa, whereby the said authority has illegally held that representation of the applicant for giving him promotion to S-10 grade cannot be considered within the rules guiding promotion to non- executives in SAIL, RMD and as such has refused to grant promotion to the applicant, (as contained in Annexure-15 to this writ petition). ii. For holding and declaring that the aforesaid order, whereby the claim of the applicant has been illegally refused, is non-speaking and without making proper consideration of the case of the applicant who is duly entitled to be promoted on the higher post. iii. For quashing the portion of promotion/placement order bearing No.01 dated 1.1.2007 issued by the respondent no.4 whereby the applicant whose name appears at Sl.No.8 of the said order has been given his promotion to the post of Khalasi Grade-I in the scale of Rs.4080-5865/- whereas he was working on the post of Attendant Grade-II, S-1 in the scale of Rs.4000- 5600/- and was entitled to be promoted to the post of Time Keeper S-10 Grade. iv. For holding and declaring that the applicant is entitled to get aforesaid promotion to the post of Time Keeper S-10 Grade in view of the fact that he along with others were promoted to the post of Time Keeper in the year 1985 vide office order dated 3.7.1985 as contained in Annexure I which is Grade-III (L-III Post) and as per rule of the Steel Authority of India Limited every employee completing four years of service is entitled to higher post of promotion. v. For a direction upon the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant and grant him promotion on the aforesaid post i.e. Time Keeper S-10 Grade and pay him consequential benefits. vi. v. For a direction upon the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant and grant him promotion on the aforesaid post i.e. Time Keeper S-10 Grade and pay him consequential benefits. vi. For direction upon the respondents to continue the service of the applicant by regularizing the period of break in service from 19.8.2000 to 24.1.2001 as during the said period, the applicant's services were dismissed illegally and he was subsequently allowed to join by the competent authority in service on 24th January, 2001. vii. For direction upon the respondents to release due 20 increments of the applicant from the year 1981 to 2001 and also make payment of due suspension allowance payable to the applicant. viii. For direction upon the respondents to reimburse tuition fee in respect of son of the applicant amounting to Rs. 51,000/- (at 17,000/- per year) as the same is lying due with the respondents for which the applicant the law." OA. No. 051/00219/2016 In W.P.(S) No. 6354 of 2017 i. "For quashing letter no. RMD/C/Pers/F-25/03/626 dated 12.5.2003 issued by the Deputy Manager (Personnel). Steel Authority of India Limited, Raw Material Division, Kolkata (respondent no.-3), enclosed with letter dated 1.2.2016 issued by the Senior Manager, Coordination/ Personnel, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi, whereby and whereunder the said authority while disposing the representation of the applicant has erroneously found that the previous service of the applicant cannot be counted and has also refused to consider the request of the applicant for grant of 20 increments in favour of the applicant besides suspension allowance for certain period (as contained in Annexure - 18 and 18/A to this application). ii. For holding and declaring that the aforesaid action of the respondents whereby the representation of the applicant relating to stoppage of 20 increments from the year 1981 to 2000, non-payment of suspension allowance for certain period and continuity of his service has not been considered is illegal, arbitrary and against the law. iii. For a direction upon the respondents to re-consider the matter of the applicant and grant and make payment of 20 increments of the applicant from the year 1981 to 2000 and also make payment of suspension allowance in favour of the applicant for the period the applicant is legally entitled as per the law besides give continuity of service counting his previous service.” 3. In the first writ petition, the petitioner become aggrieved on account of rejection of his representation vide reasoned order dated 03.03.2015 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Mines), Steel Authority of India Limited, Raw Material Division, Bhawnathpur Limestone Mines, Bhawnathpur, District Garhwa by which his claim for promotion to S-10 grade was rejected. In the second writ petition petitioner sought quashing of the communication bearing letter no. RMD/C/Pers/F-25/03/626 dated 12.05.2003 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Steel Authority of India Limited, Raw Material Division, Kolkata whereby his claim for 20 increments from 1981 to 2000 was rejected. Petitioner had also prayed for payment of suspension allowance for the period from 30.06.1998 to October, 1999 and from 01.10.1999 till his dismissal from service on 19.08.2000. The subsistence allowance has been paid later on. The learned CAT dismissed the original application vide order impugned in the first writ petition finding no illegality in the speaking order after going through the entire chronology of facts relating to the service career of the petitioner as is also reflected from the reasoned order dated 03.03.2015. The 2nd original application was dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation as the petitioner despite being aware of such communication dated 12.05.2003, chose to prefer the original application in 2016 since one of his representation made in 2015 were replied on 01.10.2016. 4. The service career of the petitioner had too many ups and down. The brief history of the service career is reflected in the reasoned order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure- 14 to W.P.(S) No. 6283 of 2017), which is extracted in full here under: RAW MATERIALS DIVISION BHAWANATHPUR LIMESTONE MINES REASONED ORDER BNP/AGH/15-216 Date: 02/03.03.2015 This has reference to the representation dated 03.09.2012 of Shri K. K. Singh, Pl. No. 1101737, Attendant-cum-Jr. Tech., Medical Deptt. BNP, addressed to the Executive Director (RMD) I/C, Steel Authority of India Limited, 10 Camac Street, Industry House, Kolkata for consideration of the same in pursuance of the direction given vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2012 of Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi. The representation dated 03.09.2012 addressed to the Executive Director (RMD) I/c, Steel Authority of India Limited, 10 Camac Street, Industry House, Kolkata has been forwarded to the undersigned to give a proper reply. This has been done as the Executive Director (RMD) 1/c, is not the appropriate authority to dispose the representation of the Shri Singh. The representation dated 03.09.2012 addressed to the Executive Director (RMD) I/c, Steel Authority of India Limited, 10 Camac Street, Industry House, Kolkata has been forwarded to the undersigned to give a proper reply. This has been done as the Executive Director (RMD) 1/c, is not the appropriate authority to dispose the representation of the Shri Singh. The matter has been examined and it appears as follows: That Shri K. K. Singh joined this organization on 14.04.1981 as Attdnt. Gr.-ll (S-1). As per the date of joining, Shri Singh was eligible for promotion with effect from 14.04.1984 on completion of 3 years in the existing grade subject to vacancy in the next higher grade in his LoP (Line of Promotion) and satisfying the eligibility conditions for such promotion. However, due to non-availability of vacancy in the next higher grade, the case of Shri K. K. Singh could not be considered on due date i.e. on 14.04.1984. No one else who was junior to Shri Singh has not been promoted in the LoP. In the year 1985, Shri K. K. Singh had been charge sheeted vide charge sheet no.-Pers/OMQ/BNP/85-447 dated 21/22.08.1985 and was placed under suspension. During the course of enquiry on the charges levelled against him vide the above charge-sheet, it was found that Shri Singh was guilty and was "censured vide letter no.-OMQ/242 dated 15.01.1987. Shri K. K. Singh was informed vide letter no.-Pers/BNP/E/88-935 dated 29.09.1988 that his placement in the next higher grade could not be considered as his service records were not satisfactory and the same will be considered in June 1989 provided his service records were found satisfactory. Shri K.K. Singh was again charge sheeted vide charge sheet no.-OMQ/5051 dated 01.10.1988 for various acts of mis-conduct. In the enquiry, he was found guilty and major penalty of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect was imposed on him in terms of Clause 40(ii)(a) of the Standing Orders of the Company vide Office Order No.-DGM/M&Q/BNP/89-1567 dated 25.07.1989 by the Disciplinary Authority. Shri K. K. Singh was found eligible for promotion in the year 1992 because he was fulfilling all the terms and conditions for promotion. Thus, he was promoted w.e.f. 31.12.1992 vide promotion order no.-Pers/BNP/E/192-1859 dated 30.12.1992 from Khalasi Gr.II (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.l (S-2). But he did not join the new post/Grade. A letter in this regard was sent to him vide letter no.-BNP/Pers/96-23 dated 12.10.1996. Thus, he was promoted w.e.f. 31.12.1992 vide promotion order no.-Pers/BNP/E/192-1859 dated 30.12.1992 from Khalasi Gr.II (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.l (S-2). But he did not join the new post/Grade. A letter in this regard was sent to him vide letter no.-BNP/Pers/96-23 dated 12.10.1996. In the meantime, an industrial Dispute was raised by the President, NMDC Mines Workers Union on behalf of Shri K. K. Singh regarding denial of his promotion vide letter dated 10.10.1996. The matter was taken up in conciliation before the ALC [C]-II, Patna and during the course of the conciliation proceedings, the conciliation ended in failure as per order no.-1/25/96-ALC-II dated 24.04.1997. The Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, did not find any merit in the case of Shri Singh for reference to Industrial Tribunal. Shri K. K. Singh was again placed under suspension vide order no.-Pers/BNP/E/1998-824 dated 30.06.1998 for serious acts of misconduct. For creating law and order problems and disturbing peace and harmony in the Company's premises, a police complaint was lodged against Shri Singh and the police took him into custody. Shri K. K. Singh was dismissed from the services of the Company for the above acts of misconduct vide Office Order No.-RMD/KTR/GM/DIS/2000/2379 dated 19.08.2000 in accordance with Clause 28 (ii) (c) of the certified Standing Orders of the Company. On appeal by Shri K. K. Singh, the Appellate Authority reviewed his dismissal order and passed punishment from "Reduction to a lower stage in a time scale", i.e. in the Initial scale of S-1 grade and Shri Singh was allowed to re-join the services vide letter no.-ED/RMD/01/2606 dated 15.01.2001 giving last chance for improving his behavior. Accordingly, he re-joined the services on 25.01.2001 on an initial scale of S-1 grade. After re-joining the service, Shri Singh completed 04 years' service on 24.01.2005. A letter was sent to him communicating his poor performance and for improving his behaviour vide no.- Pers/BNP/E/2003-164 dated 21/24.03.2003. As per the rules of the Company, Shri Singh's name was considered by DPC on 30.06.2005 but as he had not earned promotable rating/grades in his CCR for the year 2001 and 2002, his case for promotion could not be considered on 30.06.2005. Shri K. K. Singh's CCR for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 [three consecutive years] were found satisfactory and he was fulfilling all the terms and conditions for promotion to the higher grade. Shri K. K. Singh's CCR for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005 [three consecutive years] were found satisfactory and he was fulfilling all the terms and conditions for promotion to the higher grade. Shri Singh was considered for promotion to the post of Khalasi Gr.-I in S-2 grade vide promotion order no.-Pers/BNP/E/2005-018 dated 04.01.2006 w.e.f 21.12.2005. But again he did not join the new post/grade. A letter no.- Pers/BNP/ E/2006-801 dated 21.12.2006 was sent to Shri Singh through his controlling officer that his joining report in the new post had not been received. He was further asked to confirm his acceptance in writing within 03 (three) days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter, failing which, it would be presumed that he is not willing to join in the new grade. No confirmation to this effect has been received from Shri Singh's end so far. Shri K. K. Singh has again been promoted from post of Attdnt. Gr.-ll (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.-l (5-2) w.e.f. 31.12.2006 vide promotion order no.-Pers/BNP/E/2007-01 dated 01.01.2007 but his joining report in the new post/grade has not been received till date. As per the above, it is seen that Shri K. K. Singh joined this organization on 14.04.1981 and during his whole service period, his behavior for most of the period has not been found satisfactory due to which promotion has not been considered and whenever he fulfilled the terms and conditions for promotion, Shri Singh was promoted twice one w.e.f. 31.12.1992 and again w.e.f. 31.12.2006 from Attdnt. Gr.-ll (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.-1 (5-2) as per rules of the Company but he did not join the new post/grade. Further, Shri K. K. Singh was dismissed from the services of the Company and on his appeal the Appellate Authority gave him another chance by allowing Shri Singh to rejoin the services of the Company in the lowest grade, i.e.S-1. In view of the above, the representation of Shri K. K. Singh for giving him promotion to S-10 grades cannot be considered within the rules guiding promotion to non-executives in SAIL, RMD. This reasoned order is passed in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court given in WP(S) No.-3407 of 2008. (Rajiv Bhargav) DGM (Mines) 5. In view of the above, the representation of Shri K. K. Singh for giving him promotion to S-10 grades cannot be considered within the rules guiding promotion to non-executives in SAIL, RMD. This reasoned order is passed in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court given in WP(S) No.-3407 of 2008. (Rajiv Bhargav) DGM (Mines) 5. To add to the narration, it would be pertinent to refer to the two orders passed by this Court, one in W.P.(S) No. 1445 of 2006 dated 05.09.2006 and other order in L.P.A. arising therefrom bearing No. 523 of 2006 dated 16.11.2006. From the chronology of facts narrated in the reasoned order, it appears that the appellate authority had vide its order dated 25.08.2000 converted the penalty of dismissal from service into reduction in lower stage in the time scale, which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(S) No. 1445 of 2006. The learned Writ Court while refusing to interfere in the order of punishment, however gave liberty to the petitioner to claim promotion to the higher post, which was to be considered in accordance with law. Learned Appellate Court refused to interfere in the order passed by the learned Writ Court but reiterated the liberty granted to the writ petitioner/ petitioner herein to make a claim for promotion. That claim of promotion stood rejected by the reasoned order dated 03.03.2015 pursuant to his representation dated 03.09.2012. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed in the first writ petition has submitted that the findings in the order of the learned CAT and in the reasoned order that petitioner was promoted from the post of Attendant Grade-II (S-1) to the post of Khalasi Grade-I(S-2) w.e.f. 31.12.2006 are erroneous since the post of Khalasi Grade-I (S-2) was not in the line of promotion from that of Attendant Grade-II(S-1). However, on being specifically asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show the line of promotion in the Organization to substantiate the point. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the reasoned order and the contents of the counter affidavit of the first writ petition to support the order passed by the learned CAT. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the reasoned order and the contents of the counter affidavit of the first writ petition to support the order passed by the learned CAT. It is further submitted that petitioner was reinstated in service in the initial scale of S-1 grade i.e., Attendant Grade-II pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority modifying the penalty of dismissal from service. The order of reinstatement is not on record. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that petitioner’s reinstatement in the initial scale of S-1 grade was not on the correct post of Attendant Grade-II (S-1). Apart from that the service career of the petitioner shows that he had been censured for the first time on the charges of misconduct on 15.01.1987 and again punished with major penalty of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 25.07.1989. Thereafter, despite being granted promotion in the year 1992 from Khalasi Gr.II (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.1(S-2), he did not join the new post. The Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner did not lead to a reference before Labour Court despite the failure of conciliation before ALC[C]-II, Patna. Petitioner was again punished for serious misconduct by dismissal from service due to his taking into custody on a police complaint vide order dated 19.08.2000. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service pursuant to the appellate order in order to give him last chance to improve his behavior, which he joined on 25.01.2001 on an initial scale of S-1 grade. He could not earn promotion on 4 years of service thereafter in 2005 as his CCR for the year 2001 and 2002 did not earn promotable rating/ grades. Thereafter, on consideration of his CCR for the subsequent 3 years, he was promoted to the post of Khalasi Gr.-1 in S-2 grade on 04.01.2006 but with a rider that he should report joining within 3 days but there was no confirmation to that effect from him. Finally, he was again promoted w.e.f 31.12.2006 from the post of Attdnt.Gr.II (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.I (S-2) regarding which again there is no report of his joining the new post. Finally, he was again promoted w.e.f 31.12.2006 from the post of Attdnt.Gr.II (S-1) to Khalasi Gr.I (S-2) regarding which again there is no report of his joining the new post. On the main plea being harped upon by the petitioner regarding promotion to a lower post of Khalasi Grade-I (S-2), as observed above, petitioner has not been able to show the line of promotion in the organization to substantiate the plea. 8. Having regard to the discussion made herein above, in the light of the facts borne from record, petitioner has not been able to show any error in the impugned order passed by the learned CAT whereby it refused to interfere in the reasoned order dated 03.03.2015. As such, the W.P.(S) No. 6283 of 2017 being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed. 9. So far as the second writ petition is concerned, the same relates to the stale claim of 20 increments over a period from 1981 to 2000 and claim for subsistence allowance for certain period till his dismissal from service on 19.08.2000. The subsistence allowance has been paid, though later on but his claim for 20 increments for the period of 20 years from 1981 to 2000 is stale, as has been rightly held by the learned CAT. Apart from that on consideration of the chequered history of his service career, petitioner having served 3 punishments during the said period and having refused to join the promoted post also in the year 1992 and in 2005-06, cannot at this stage make a rightful claim for grant of such increments dating back to 1981 to 2000. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned CAT also in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the W.P.(S) No. 6354 of 2017 is also dismissed.