such direction. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of said direction, re-options were sought and the writ petitioners also opted out for such option. They were also promoted as per Exhibit P2 dated 21.12.2010. However, their salary in the promotional post was not fixed from 21.12.2010 till date, therefore, they approached the learned Single Judge contending that similarly placed persons and also the persons, juniors to them, who gave reoption and were promoted, are getting salary in the post to which they were promoted and these writ petitioners were not given any such promotion. The only defence put forth by the appellant institution is that a Vigilance enquiry is pending against the Director for all the acts and deeds done by him between 2006 and 2011. The promotions granted to the petitioner as also the permission granted to exercise option was also under scrutiny. We cannot ignore the fact that almost 16 persons including the juniors to the petitioners were promoted on submission of reoption and all of them are getting salaries after refixation of their salary in the promotional post. We fail to understand why these two petitioners are segregated from others and they are not given any benefit and they are driven to approach this Court. The learned Single Judge, after considering the factual situation of the
