( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the discrimination meted out to the petitioner by the respondent-Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited by not granting benefits of due promotion to the post of executive Engineer, after his retirement, and, thereby, depriving him of consequential terminal benefits, etc. as per the Rules existing in the respondent-Corporation.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Fitter in the respondent-Corporation on 28th March 1968 and, thereafter, promoted to the post of Chargeman Assistant engineer (Foreman), on 1. 4. 1982. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 25. 3. 1992 with retrospective effect from 1. 1. 1985. The petitioner retired from service on 31st August 1992 and, according to the petitioner, he was due for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1. 1. 1991, but, as the earlier promotion was not granted in time, his next promotion as Executive Engineer (Mech.) was also withheld, and, thereafter, the petitioner was superannuated from the service. 2. 1 according to the petitioner, even other employees similarly situated like the petitioner have been given promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1. 1. 1991 and the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner, therefore, made representation to the respondent-Corporation on 2. 8. 1994 and 26. 11. 1994 to treat his case on par with the similarly situated persons and, even in a given case, the juniors to the petitioner were also given the benefit of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1. 1. 1991 and, therefore, he might also be given similar benefits.

( 3 ) IT is pertinent to note that the petitioner retired from service on 31. 8. 1992 and this petition was filed in the month of August 1996, which, ultimately, came up for hearing on 30. 8. 1996, when, notice was issued and, subsequently, by order dated 18. 3. 1997, Rule came to be issued in this matter. Therefore, even after retirement of the petitioner, this petition was filed after lapse of four years. The petitioner has stated in the petition that, after retirement, the petitioner had settled down at his home town at Ludhiana (Punjab) and, therefore, it was difficult for him to come to Ahmedabad to file a petition and he was hopeful about his representations submitted to the respondent-Corporation.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner, Mr. T. R. Mishra, has submitted that, though the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion for the post of executive Engineer, which was due from 1. 1. 1991, the respondent-Corporation acted discriminately and in arbitrary manner and the petitioner was superseded by his juniors at Sr. Nos. 205, 204, 195 and 197, who figured in the seniority list publishedbythe respondent-Corporation, since the petitioner was at Sr. No. 186. Learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra, for the petitioner, has further contended that, during his service, the petitioner had received meritorious certificates for the work which he had performed and, therefore, on account of seniority as well as on merit also, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondent-Corporation for the post of executive Engineer. 4. 1 learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra, for the petitioner, has taken this Court to several representations submitted by the petitioner at Annexure "a", "b" and "c" to the petition, dated 2. 8. 1994, 29. 9. 1992, 6. 1. 1993 and 3. 1. 1994 respectively, and has submitted that several promotion orders have been given by the respondent-Corporation even after retirement of the employees, and not considering the case of the petitioner on par with those employees amounts to discrimination meted out to the petitioner in an arbitrary manner, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. 2 learned advocate Mr. T.