IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5389 of 2008. Decided on: 30.04.2010. __________________________________________________________ Kashmir Singh and others. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioners’ case, in a nutshell, is that there are no adequate promotional avenues available to them vis-à-vis the ministerial cadre. This position has been reflected in para 9 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners. It has also been admitted by the State that the petitioners are stagnating in the cadre of Senior Scale Stenographers for more than a decade. However, it has been justified on the ground of conditions of service. It is settled law by now that there should be avenues for promotion for every employee to improve public 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 service and to reduce stagnation and avoid frustration amongst the employees. 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. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to frame a scheme for providing more promotional avenues to the cadre of the petitioners. Needful be done within a period of sixteen weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 30, 2010. *awasthi*.