IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 6159 of 2008. Decided on: 27.07.2010. _________________________________________________________ Jai Chand Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): The grievance of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that his promotional avenues from the post of Senior Scale Stenographer have been restricted after coming into force the new Recruitment and Promotion Rules only to the post Personal Assistant. It is not in dispute that before the enforcement of the existing rules, the category of the petitioner could also be considered for promotion in the ministerial stream. It is settled law by now that there should be at least two to three promotional avenues available to the employees to improve public service and also to remove the stagnation. 2. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Parshotam Das Bansal and others, (2008) 5 SCC 100 have held that the higher Courts can issue directions to the State/employer to frame a scheme for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. providing promotional avenues to these categories who have been deprived of this privilege. In Satyanarayana and others versus S. Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 SCC 416 their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the purpose of promotion is to remove stagnation and avoid frustration amongst the employees. 3. In view of the definitive law laid down by their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2008 (5) SCC 100 (supra), the respondents are directed to frame a scheme within a a period of three months from today to provide promotional avenue to the category of the petitioner. 4. With these directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 27, 2010. (bhupender)