JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. V.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “For quashing of the so-called reasoned order dated 8.9.2011 (Reference No. CIL: C5: (a) (1): 50254: 955) passed by the Director (P&IR), C.I.L. (respondent no.2), whereby and whereunder the representation dated 22.6.2011 of petitioner and 3 other employees of Bharat Cooking Coal Limited made in pursuance of order dated 9.5.11 and along with a copy of the order dated 9.5.11 passed in W.P.(S). No.558/11 (as modified by order dated 9.6.2011) for allowing them the benefits under career Growth Scheme of diploma holders stagnating in A or A-1 grade by way of up-gradation to Executive – 1 (E-1) Grade has not been accepted and accordingly, the representation disposed of; And Petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / Order(s)/direction (s) commanding upon the concerned respondents to allow the petitioner to benefit of career growth in terms of the approval granted by the Board of Directors of the Coal India Limited vide Item No.255:4(I) in its 255th Meeting held on 17.3.2011 at New Delhi for up-gradation of all diploma holders of Engineering discipline i.e., mining, E&M excavation, Civil ENT, Industrial Engineering’s, Coal preparation etc., which have been stagnating in technical and supervisory grade – A or A-1 for more than 15 years to E-1 grade: And Petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/ direction (s) commanding upon the concerned respondent to upgrade the petitioner to the post of Executive – 1 (E-1) grade and designate the petitioner as subordinate Engineer (E&M) w.e.f. the date when other similarly situated employees and employees junior to the petitioner upgraded to the post of E-1 grade and designate as Subordinate Engineer (E&M) by an office order dated 22.12.2010 issued by Coal India Limited in terms of the decision taken in 255th Meeting of the Coal India Limited’s Board of Directors and the recommendation of the committee.” Arguments of the Petitioner 4. While giving the factual background of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed Diploma in Technology in Automobile Engineering and passed the final examination for which a certificate was issued by Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology on 20th Day of January, 1984. While giving the factual background of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed Diploma in Technology in Automobile Engineering and passed the final examination for which a certificate was issued by Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology on 20th Day of January, 1984. An advertisement was issued inviting application through employment exchange for the post of Technician and Apprenticeship (Automobile) and the required qualification was matriculate with diploma in automobile engineering. Consequently, the petitioner applied and was appointed in Technical Grade-C vide appointment letter dated 11.06.1990. Thereafter, vide office order dated 09.08.1996, the petitioner, who was working on the post of T & S Grade C at the relevant point of time, other diploma holders and Assistant Foreman were placed on the post of Foreman in T&S Grade B w.e.f. 17.08.1991 and as per the office order dated 09.08.1996 (Annexure-4), the petitioner was a diploma holder. The learned counsel further submits that vide office order dated 12.03.1997 (Annexure-5), which was also issued pursuant to letters issued by Coal India Limited, the petitioner was given notional seniority to the post of Foreman Incharge in T&S Grade A. w.e.f. 17.8.1994. Thereafter, on the basis of recommendation of departmental promotion committee, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Foreman (I/C E & M in T&S Grade A-1) w.e.f. 01.04.2005 vide office order dated 29/30.07.2008 (Annexure-6). 5. The learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 07/08.07.2004 (part of Annexure-7 series), the provisional seniority list of Foreman I/C E & M diploma in T&S Grade A was published and circulated inviting objection and the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.326 and the petitioner’s technical qualification was mentioned to be diploma in automobile engineering and date of promotion in Grade A was mentioned as 17.08.1994. The said provisional seniority list was subsequently finalized and the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No.305 in the gradation list. The learned counsel has also submitted that the name of one Rameshwar Goswami was at Sl. No.309 of the final seniority list and the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.305 in the final seniority list and therefore, petitioner was senior to Rameshwar Goswami. 6. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid factual background has been given in view of the fact that the petitioner’s entering into service and all subsequent promotions and revision of pay etc. No.305 in the final seniority list and therefore, petitioner was senior to Rameshwar Goswami. 6. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid factual background has been given in view of the fact that the petitioner’s entering into service and all subsequent promotions and revision of pay etc. was pursuant to the diploma which was throughout possessed by the petitioner in the field of automobile engineering. He submits that the said diploma has been placed on record by filing supplementary affidavit dated 10.01.2022. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has also placed on record the Minutes of 255th meeting of the Board of Directors of Coal India Limited held on 17th of March, 2010 at New Delhi containing item no.255; 4 /(I) which relates to approval of career growth of diploma holders stagnating in A/A-1 grade and the petitioner has also enclosed a letter dated 16.04.2010 which is the list of diploma holders who are stagnating in that grade where the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. no.48. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was entitled to upgradation pursuant to the aforesaid decision of Coal India Limited in which the subsidiaries of the Coal Company had also participated, but the said benefit was not granted to the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the petitioner along with three others filed a writ petition being W.P.(S). No.558 of 2011 seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of promotion upgrading them to the post of E 1 Grade with all consequential benefits with effect from the date other similarly situated persons even juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.2011 with a liberty to file a fresh representation before the Director (Personnel) BCCL, Dhanbad who was to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The said order dated 09.05.2011 was subsequently modified vide order dated 09.06.2011 wherein the word Director Personnel BCCL, Dhanbad was directed to be read as Director (P&IR) Coal India Limited. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order in the present case is the reasoned order dated 08.09.2011 as well as orders of this Court passed in the earlier round of writ proceedings are contained as a part of Annexure – 1 series. 8. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order in the present case is the reasoned order dated 08.09.2011 as well as orders of this Court passed in the earlier round of writ proceedings are contained as a part of Annexure – 1 series. 8. The learned counsel while assailing the impugned order dated 08.09.2011 submits that the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is in possession of diploma in automobile engineering from Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology, Madras, the duration of diploma programme has been clearly mentioned as two years and therefore his request for upgradation to E 1 Grade cannot be accepted. The learned counsel has referred to 255th meeting of Coal India Limited dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure-10) to submit that no distinction was made with regard to the period of diploma programme and he further refers to the diploma certificate which has been issued to the petitioner by Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology and submits that the same simply mentions that the petitioner has passed the final examination held in the month of December, 1983, but does not refer to the period of diploma programme. The learned counsel submits that it has been mentioned in the impugned order itself that the committee while making its recommendation had observed that all the recommendations were subject to (a) Diploma Certificate being recognized by Government/Technical Board (b) Duration of diploma programme being minimum three years and (c) where no year of qualification was mentioned, the relevant qualification should have been acquired prior to the period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010 as the cut-off date. 9. The learned counsel submits that admittedly the diploma in technology certificate was issued on 20.01.1984 and no year of qualification was mentioned in the diploma itself (which forms part of the record) consequently, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had acquired the diploma prior to the period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010 as the cut-off date. Therefore, even if the period of diploma programme was for two years, but the period of qualification was not mentioned in the diploma which was obtained prior to the period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010, the petitioner was duly entitled for the upgradation to E 1 Grade, but the petitioner has been wrongly denied the same by the impugned order. 10. 10. Learned counsel submits that he has also placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2021 at para 6 and 7 bringing on record that one Kanak Baruah had passed two years diploma in automobile engineering from the same institute and he has been upgraded to the post of E 1 Grade by office order dated 22.12.2010. Similarly, other employees namely M.A. Qureshi, Sri A.K. Singh who have also passed two years diploma in automobile engineering from Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology, Madras have also been upgraded to the post of E 1 Grade vide office order dated 22.12.2010. Another person namely R.B. Dhamne, who was also similarly situated has been upgraded vide office order issued on 02.02.2011. The learned counsel while referring to para 7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit has mentioned that one A.K. Singh who had completed 1 year diploma in engineering has also been upgraded to the post of E 1 Grade and has further been promoted to the E 2 and thereafter to the post of Assistant Manager in E 3 grade vide office order dated 02.04.2016 issued by Coal India Limited. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have given similar relief as prayed for by the petitioner to persons who had attended 2 years diploma programme and also to one person who had attended only one year diploma programme, but the petitioner has been left out arbitrarily amounting to unjustified discrimination against the petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that a specific plea was raised in the earlier writ petition that similarly situated persons even junior to the petitioner have been given promotion, but on this aspect of the matter, the impugned order is completely silent. Similar plea has been raised in these proceedings, but there is no denial of this fact from the side of the respondents. 11. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Tej Narayan Pandey and others Vs. Coal India Limited reported in 2003 (4) JCR 81 Jhr and has referred to para 12 of the said judgment to submit that the decision of upgradation having been taken in the meeting of CMDs of subsidiary coal companies including CMD of BCCL, cannot be interpreted in any other manner nor can be clarified by one or other Subordinate Officer, there being no ambiguity and the language being clear. The learned counsel submits that in the present case also, a decision was taken in the 255th Board Meeting of Coal India Limited where the subsidiary companies including BCCL had participated and therefore any modification in the same could be done only by the same body and subordinate officers of BCCL cannot modify the same. By referring to the 255th Board Meeting, the learned counsel has submitted that para 4.9 (i) mentions upgradation of all diploma holders of Engineering disciplines i.e., Mining, E&M, Excavation, Civil, E&T, Industrial Engineering, Coal preparation etc. who have been stagnating in T&S Grade A or A-1 for more than 15 years as on the cut-off date to be decided by implementing authority, to E 1 Grade as one time arrangement. He submits that the criteria which has been culled out in the board meeting cannot be diluted or digressed by the respondents. Arguments of the Respondents 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and the duration of diploma programme of the petitioner was admittedly two years. He submits that the required duration of diploma programme was minimum three years. However, during the course of argument, upon perusal of the diploma which has been placed on record by the petitioner in supplementary affidavit, it is not in dispute that the period of diploma programme has not been mentioned on the certificate, but the learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had undertaken only two years of training programme. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to para 12 to 15 of the counter-affidavit filed on 19.03.2012 to submit that the respondents have not considered any case for upgradation to E 1 Grade as a subordinate engineer who was without the diploma degree of 3 years and the 3 years diploma course is sine qua non and the petitioner possess diploma certificate in Automobile Engineering which is only of 2 years. The respondents had got the certificate verified from the institute and upon verification, it came to light that the petitioner has undertaken a diploma of two years which cannot be compared with the diploma which is for three years. The respondents had got the certificate verified from the institute and upon verification, it came to light that the petitioner has undertaken a diploma of two years which cannot be compared with the diploma which is for three years. The learned counsel has also referred to supplementary counter-affidavit para 7 onwards to refer to the minutes of meeting dated 6th of December, 2010 wherein the committee decided to grant benefit to all diploma holders who had three years diploma course to their credit and the case of Rameshwar Goswami is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the petitioner did not have a diploma certificate of two years, but nothing as such has been mentioned so far as diploma certificate of Rameshwar Goswami is concerned. Learned counsel has also submitted that as per the cadre scheme, the petitioner is not entitled for promotion. In the counter-affidavit, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner being not a diploma holder in mechanical and as such was wrongly given the notional seniority in T&S Grade A, which is another ground for not granting relief as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel while referring to the minutes of meeting has submitted that the disciplines for which the persons were entitled were from civil engineering, mining, excavation, electrical and mechanical, electronic and telecommunication, industrial engineering and drilling. 13. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel has also referred to a Circular dated 22.04.2010 annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and he submits that the said communication was issued pursuant to 255th Meeting of Board of Directors of Coal India Limited dated 17.03.2010. However, upon perusal of the said document also, it is clear that the eligible diploma holders were those of engineering disciplines i.e., Mining, E&M, Excavation, Civil, E&T Industrial Engineering, Coal preparation etc. and the list is not exhaustive. However, admittedly, this point is also not the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order. Further, admittedly, the allegation that the petitioner was wrongly promoted earlier is also not the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order. Findings of this Court 14. and the list is not exhaustive. However, admittedly, this point is also not the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order. Further, admittedly, the allegation that the petitioner was wrongly promoted earlier is also not the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the impugned order. Findings of this Court 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the factual background which has been narrated by the petitioner is not in dispute. This Court further finds that the petitioner along with 3 others had filed a writ petition before this Court being in W.P.(S). No.558 of 2011 wherein a specific case was pleaded that even the juniors to the petitioner have been given the upgradation to the post of E 1 Grade and consequently, the petitioner had prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the claim of promotion upgrading the petitioners to the post of E 1 Grade with all consequential benefits with effect from the date other similarly situated persons even the juniors to the petitioner have been granted. The matter was to be considered by the Director, (P&IR), Coal India Limited. The impugned order dated 08.09.2011 has been passed by the aforesaid authority which is a reasoned order and impugned in the present proceedings. 15. Upon perusal of the said reasoned order, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the same is a follow up of the decision of the Board of Coal India Limited 255th Meeting dated 17.03.2010 indicating that such diploma holders who were stagnating in T&S grade A /A-1 for 15 years or more as on 31.03.2010 were to be considered for upgradation to E 1 Grade as subordinate engineer as one time arrangement as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Thus, it is not in dispute even as per the impugned order that the decision of Board of Coal India Limited did not make any distinction amongst the diploma holders for two years, three years or one year. The decision of Coal India Limited Board in its 255th Meeting has been placed on record by the petitioner in the writ petition itself which has not been disputed by the respondents in their two counter-affidavits. 16. The decision of Coal India Limited Board in its 255th Meeting has been placed on record by the petitioner in the writ petition itself which has not been disputed by the respondents in their two counter-affidavits. 16. It further appears from the impugned order that the recommendation for upgradation/ promotion made subject to (a) diploma certificate being recognized by Government / Technical board. It is not in dispute that the petitioner satisfies this condition. (b) duration of diploma programme being minimum three years. The petitioner does not satisfy this condition. (c) where no year of qualification was mentioned, the relevant qualification should have been acquired prior to the period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010 as a cut-off date. Upon perusal of the diploma which has been issued to the petitioner, no year of qualification has been mentioned and it is not in dispute that the petitioner has acquired the qualification prior to period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010 as the cut-off date. The diploma in technology was issued to the petitioner on 20.01.1984. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner satisfies this criterion. 17. The reason for passing the impugned order is that the petitioner was possessing Diploma in Automobile Engineering from Hindustan Institute of Engineering Technology, Madras wherein the duration of diploma programme has been clearly mentioned as two years and consequently, the request of consideration to E 1 Grade cannot be accepted. Upon perusal of the diploma of the petitioner, it is apparent that the period of two years has not been mentioned. The certificate which has been issued in the diploma is as follows : “This is to certify that Mr. M. Masroor Karim having satisfactorily completed the prescribed course of study in faculty of Automobile Engineering and having passed final examination held in the month of December, 1983 in first class is awarded this diploma dated 20th day of January 1984 at Madras” 18. On the one hand, no period for diploma holder has been prescribed in Coal India Limited Board’s 255th meeting dated 17.03.2010 and, on the other hand, even the diploma of the petitioner does not refer to the period of diploma programme. Therefore, the ground for rejection which has been mentioned in the reasoned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the ground for rejection which has been mentioned in the reasoned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The committee while making the decision had clearly mentioned that where there no year of qualification was mentioned, the relevant qualification should have been acquired prior to the period of 15 years taking 31.03.2010 as the cut-off date. This Court finds that Clause (c) of the aforesaid decision of the committee is duly satisfied by the petitioner. 19. This Court further finds that the petitioner has brought on record the instances of large number of persons as has been recorded in his submission and with supporting documents in his supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2021, but in spite of repeated opportunities granted to the respondents vide order dated 10.01.2022 by specific reference to supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2021 para 6 and rejoinder affidavit dated 30.07.2013 para 11, no supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case and accordingly, the said position stands admitted. From perusal of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is clear that not only similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner, but also persons having attended only 1 year diploma course were granted the benefit. 20. This Court also finds that although in the earlier writ petition, the specific case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was discriminated against similarly situated persons, but the impugned order does not reflect this aspect of the matter at all. The petitioner has brought on record that the petitioner has been discriminated against similarly situated persons and he has also given the instance of one person who had attended only one year diploma programme and has been granted the benefit which remains undisputed from the side of the respondents. 21. The respondents have tried to justify the impugned order by taking additional grounds in the counter-affidavit including the ground that the promotion of the petitioner was itself incorrect and also the ground that persons holding diploma from automobile sector were not entitled. These additional grounds have been disputed and denied by the petitioner. The law is well settled that the impugned order is to be tested on the grounds on which it has been passed and it is not permissible for the respondents to supplement the grounds by filing a counter-affidavit. These additional grounds have been disputed and denied by the petitioner. The law is well settled that the impugned order is to be tested on the grounds on which it has been passed and it is not permissible for the respondents to supplement the grounds by filing a counter-affidavit. Therefore, the ground which has been urged by the respondents by referring to the counter affidavit is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court further finds that neither the decision of Coal India Limited referred or restricted the relief to any particular category of diploma holder nor the letter dated 22.04.2010 issued by the respondents referring to the various disciplines is exhaustive in nature. Further, grant of relief to the similarly situated persons whose details have been provided by the petitioner, is not in dispute. 22. Accordingly, the denial of the benefit of upgradation to E 1 Grade by impugned order dated 08.09.2011 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, which is accordingly set aside. 23. The respondent no.2 is directed to grant the benefit of upgradation to E 1 Grade to the petitioner from the date his juniors have been granted such benefit and as per the pleadings the juniors have been granted the benefit w.e.f. 22.12.2010. The consequential order and the consequential relief be also granted to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. 24. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.