IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6149 of 2008. Decided on: 24.07.2010 Ramesh Chand …Petitioner -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1.No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the respondent department on 27th January, 1983. He along with similarly situated persons approached the learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 860 of 1991. The original application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated 12.04.1995. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:- “In view of above narration the application is allowed. Rule 7(1)(A) of Himachal Pradesh Police Class III Clerical Services (Recruitment, Promotion and certain conditions of services) Rules, 1962, as amended from time to time is quashed and set aside being discriminatory. The respondents are directed to re-frame the Rules in such a way so as to give opportunity to left out Class IV employees for promotion. The respondents are further directed to complete this exercise within a period of six 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 months. The respondents are also directed to consider the applicants along with other eligible candidates under re-framed Rules 7(1)(A) for the post of Clerk within another period of three months.” 2. In sequel thereto, the petitioner and similarly situated persons made representation for considering their case for the post of Clerk. The respondent-State framed new Rules called “Himachal Pradesh Police Department, Clerk (Class-III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1997” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”, for brevity sake). These Rules were notified on 14.02.1997. 90% of the posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment and remaining 10% of the posts were to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Class-IV officials, who have passed Matriculation Examination or Hindi (Rattan) with Matric (English as one of the subjects) and also possess 5 years regular service etc. 3. Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Advocate has strenuously argued that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for the post of Clerk, as per Rules notified on 14.2.1997,. 4. Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has already been placed in Class-III post, in the pay scale of Rs. 3120- 5160, his case could not be considered for promotion to the post of Clerk. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. The petitioner was appointed as Cook on 27th January, 1983. The post of the Cook has been categorized as Class-III post and 3 this post has been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160. Since the petitioner has already been placed in the same pay scale, which is payable to the Clerk, he has rightly not been considered for appointment for the post of Clerk. As per Rules notified on 14.02.1997, 10% of the posts were to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Class-IV officials, who have passed Matriculation Examination. The promotion could only be made from the feeder category and not from the same status post. 7. Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, has also argued that no promotional avenues are available to the category of petitioner i.e. cooks. This submission is not refuted by Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. It is settled law by now under service jurisprudence that two to three promotional avenues should be made available to an employee to improve the public service and also to remove the stagnation. 8. 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 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. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, as far as the claim of the petitioner to be considered for 4 the post of Clerk is concerned, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. However, as per the judgments referred to hereinabove, the respondents are directed to frame a scheme to provide sufficient promotional avenues to the category of cooks, serving in the respondent department, within a period of 12 weeks from today. 10. In view of the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge July 24, 2010 (K. Attri)