J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE short question in this petition is again of a controversy age old between the Management and the Employees. The question which could have been resolved at the Management level by the respondents is kept alive for a spell of more than a decade. Apart from sympathy to the petitioners what is accorded to them is apathy. The persons who are rejected and dejected from getting the in benefit of a special scheme of personal promotion adopted by the respondent-Institute have knocked the doors of justice by filing this petition under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of the petition and challenge against it it would be necessary to have a conspectus of the material facts at the out-set. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 1-Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA for short ). It appears from the facts of the present case that in order to work out the effective and better policy of promotions pay scale and other service benefits by the IIMA there were several demands from the staff association of the IIMA. Pursuant to the said demands of the staff of the IIMA there came to be constituted the Staff Evaluation Committee (SEC for short) which had to go into the questions of promotion pay allowances and other service benefits which were inter alia demanded by the staff association. ( 4 ) IT appears that the said Committee (SEC) having gone into all these aspects and having heard the persons concerned had submitted a report to respondent No. 1-Institute on 14-9- 1978 and respondent No. 1-Institute having considered the report containing the recommendations of the SEC had been pleased to accept the report. The relevant extracts of the said report are produced in this petition. On acceptance of the said report what is agitated in this petition is the refusal of one of the benefits flowing from the said report pertaining to the right of Personal Promotion (PP for short ). The relevant extracts of the said report are produced in this petition. On acceptance of the said report what is agitated in this petition is the refusal of one of the benefits flowing from the said report pertaining to the right of Personal Promotion (PP for short ). ( 5 ) THE SEC was mainly concerned with following points for submission of its report : (a) Evaluation; (b) Decisions pertaining to grant of normal increments withholding of increments accelerated increments personal promotions and promotions from one scale to another; (c) Recommendations regarding creation of new posts for administrative staff; (d) Decisions regarding promotions / selections on the basis of tests/interviews data on candidates provided by appropriate sub- committees it may appoint for specific posts; and (e) Recommendations regarding general policy guidelines on staff development and training. ( 6 ) SINCE the recommendations of the SEC were accepted by the Management the benefits of personal promotion is made available to the staff members of the IIMA. We are vitally concerned in this petition about the interpretation of the said provisions pertaining to the personal promotion. The petitioners have inter alia contended in this petition that they are entitled to the benefits of personal promotion as they have not received such benefit earlier though it was offered. The contention of the respondents is that having once declined the offer to avail the benefit of personal promotion would ipso facto debar the staff members from claiming such benefit (Personal Promotion) in the entire service life. The right to get once the benefit of personal promotion is unconcerned with the benefit of a regular promotion and it is not in dispute. The dispute revolves round the interpretation of the right to avail the personal promotion. Could it be said that having once not accepted the offer of personal promotion in the one pay scale ipso facto constitutes a bar or an impediment in availing such benefit in future in other permissible pay scale ? In other words would refusal to avail benefit of personal promotion in one pay scale at one point of time would tantamount to having received such a benefit in future ? In other words would refusal to avail benefit of personal promotion in one pay scale at one point of time would tantamount to having received such a benefit in future ? In fact the respondent-IIMA (which this court is told that has high reputation in modern management field) has come out with a surprising interpretation that the refusal to avail the benefit of personal promotion is equivalent to having received the same. It appears that the stand taken by the respondents in refusing the benefit of personal promotion to the petitioners is running counter to the underlying fundamental desideratum and purport of the personal Promotion scheme evolved by the IIMA. Could it be said that the persons who are staff members of the IIMA having once declined to avail of the personal promotion benefit on the ground that they expected regular promotion within a short time are debarred permanently from claiming such benefit in future in the higher permissible pay scale ? The spontaneous answer to it would be in the negative. 9 It could not be said to be rational logical and reasonable interpretation which is unfortunately adopted by the respondent-IIMA. ( 7 ) IT is in this backdrop this Court is called upon to examine the merits of the petition. The petitioners representation to the respondent- IIMA to grant them benefit of personal promotion in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 700 - 1300 came to be rejected. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have challenged the decision of the respondent-Institute (IIMA) refusing the benefits of Personal Promotion Scheme. It is contended that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Personal Promotion as they have already completed eight years of service in a permissible pay-scale. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the denial of the said benefits of the Personal Promotion Scheme to the petitioners is arbitrary discriminatory and based on extraneous considerations and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They have claimed the relief that the benefits of the Personal Promotion Scheme should be extended to them with effect from 1/02/1987 with all consequential benefits like arrears increments seniority etc. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioners the respondent-Institute (IIMA) has given discriminatory treatment to them in the grant of benefits of Personal Promotion Scheme. They have claimed the relief that the benefits of the Personal Promotion Scheme should be extended to them with effect from 1/02/1987 with all consequential benefits like arrears increments seniority etc. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioners the respondent-Institute (IIMA) has given discriminatory treatment to them in the grant of benefits of Personal Promotion Scheme. It is also contended that the following six employees of the respondent-Institute have been granted the benefits of the Personal Promotion Scheme even for the first time and thus the respondents have discriminated. Their names are as under : (1) Mr. K. P. Keswankutty (2) Mr. S. Padmanabhan (3) Mr. G. A. Pillai (4) Mr. R. Pandurangan (5) Mr. M. D. Sanghavi (6) Mr. K. V. Narayanan. ( 10 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the aforesaid six persons were granted benefits of the Personal Promotion Scheme twice. The chart which is not in dispute is placed on the record of those six persons who are granted Personal Promotion Scheme benefit twice. It would therefore be interesting to refer the said chart which is as under : Name Designation 1st PP Reg. Promotion 2nd PP 550 -900 550 -900 700 -1300 K. P. Keswankutty Ex. Asst. 19-9-78 14-2-79 8-10-86 (Catering) S. Padmanabhan Ex. Asst. -do- -do- 28-8-86 (Per. Deptt.) G. A. Pillai Ex. Asst. -do- -do- -do- (Aluni office) R. Pandurangan Ex. Asst. 8-1-79 -do- 19-9-86 (FPM) M. D. Sanghavi Prof. Asst. -do- -do- 1-9-86 (Sr) in Library K. V. Narayan Ex. Asst. 19-9-78 -do- 28-8-86 (Estt) ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners could have been given the benefit of P. P. twice had the petitioners not refused the benefit of P. P. when offered. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel of the respondents that the petitioners also could have been given the benefits of the personal promotion scheme even second time had they not declined on the first occasion when offered. This submission presupposes that the refusal to avail the benefit of first personal promotion offer debars the employee from getting it twice in higher scale. This interpretation made by the respondent-IIMA is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary the interpretation sought to be placed by the design with which the scheme of Personal Promotion was devised. This submission presupposes that the refusal to avail the benefit of first personal promotion offer debars the employee from getting it twice in higher scale. This interpretation made by the respondent-IIMA is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary the interpretation sought to be placed by the design with which the scheme of Personal Promotion was devised. ( 12 ) THE expression available in the personal promotion scheme cannot be read as a receipt of the benefit flowing therefrom in the event of refusal or decline. The construction made by the respondent-IIMA is running counter to the spirit of the entire scheme of personal promotion. The eligibility criteria for personal promotion is prescribed as stated in Annexure `a. It is as follows :i. Eligibility : 1. 1 Administrative employees in the scale Rs. 550 and below only are eligible. 1. 2 An employee should be holding the same scale of pay (subject to 1. 1) for the last 8 years. 1. 3 He should not have received any promotion in that scale for a continuous period of eight years. 1. 4 An employee should not have received any personal promotion any time during his career at the Institute. ( 13 ) ONE of the criteria for being eligible to the scheme of personal promotion as it appears from the aforesaid tests is that the employee should not have received any personal promotion any time during his career at the institute. ( 14 ) CONJOINT reading of Item No. 15 in Annexure `a and the eligibility criteria would leave no any manner of doubt that the benefits of such personal promotion to the administrative staff of the IIMA cannot be refused on the ground that offer of such benefit was earlier declined. In other words it does not indicate that such benefit could be refused to the employee who had not availed of or who had not received. The plain and clear meaning and the interpretation of the expression `available and `received would show that it must have been received and not it must have been offered only. It implies the receipt of such a benefit. The plain dictionary meaning as mentioned in Oxford Dictionary to avail means to provide hold be of value or profit; profit by take advantage of. The expression receive as per the dictionary meaning is to take or accept something offered or given. It implies the receipt of such a benefit. The plain dictionary meaning as mentioned in Oxford Dictionary to avail means to provide hold be of value or profit; profit by take advantage of. The expression receive as per the dictionary meaning is to take or accept something offered or given. The afore-said dictionary meanings of the afor-said two words would undoubtedly indicate that there must be receipt of a benefit and not the offer to receive it Had that been the meaning or the interpretation the expression would have been different in the eligibility criteria as prescribed. There is no scope to admit the word offer or decline of the offer in the relevant aforesaid expressions. The contention of the respondent- IIMA that the aforesaid expression would mean only offer of the personal promotion once in the entire career of the employee cannot be accepted in view of the clear use of the relevant expressions in the aforesaid scheme and the eligibility criteria. What it would mean is that a person who had once availed of such benefit or who had received such an advantage at any time during his carrier at the Institute shall not be entitled to the benefit of the scheme of personal promotion which is over and above the usual regular promotion to the employees. Therefore on the first count from the point of view of plain perusal and plain interpretation of the said expression the contention or the defence of the respondents in denying the benefit of the personal promotion scheme to the petitioners is devoid of any force and without any substance. ( 15 ) APART from that there is no any mention in the entire scheme or in the eligibility criteria that a person who had refused or declined to avail of such benefit at any time would tantamount to have received or availed of said benefits. Not only that the construction which is sought to be placed on behalf of the respondent-IIMA is not sustainable from the point view of the purpose and object for which this scheme is devised. If the construction which is sought to be placed by the respondent-IIMA is accepted then it would have an adverse if not paralytic impact on the entire design of the personal promotion scheme. If the construction which is sought to be placed by the respondent-IIMA is accepted then it would have an adverse if not paralytic impact on the entire design of the personal promotion scheme. One of the underlying purposes of the grant of personal promotion scheme is to give some relief from the stagnation on account of varied reasons when the promotional avenues are limited which at time result in frustration and disappointment amongst the employees which in reality affect the administrative set-up and its efficiency as well. That is one of the reasons why the persons who have stagnated in one payscale or in grade for stipulated period are given benefit of personal promotion so that until regular promotion if any is given in future there would be a receipt of higher grade. Such a contingency in public employment is not uncommon. Therefore the SEC recommended such personal promotion scheme and it not only helps the morale or the spirit of the employees who have been stagnated at particular stage in a scale but also helps the management in improving and strengthening the efficiency of the administrative machinery. With a view to uphold such laudable cause or the object the scheme appears to have been introduced. Now could it be said in the aforesaid context that the interpretation made by the respondent-IIMA would foster or promote the underlying object or would it foster and frustrate the very object of the Scheme ? It so appears even from the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply of the IIMA that after having said and denied in first eight paras thereof. Para 9 is worthy to be reproduced. It runs as under :"9 However the respondent-Institute is willing to restore the personal promotion declined by the petitioners with effect from their due dates that is to say the dates on which they had refused the offer. Such admission made in Para 9 of the additional affidavit-in-reply would not only strengthen the case of the petitioners but would show the confused mind if not coloured of the respondent-IIMA in interpreting the aforesaid expression". ( 16 ) ON plain reading of the personal promotion scheme (PPS) it is obvious that the concerned employees become eligible for consideration for personal promotion to the next higher scale if and when he completes eight years without promotion in a particular scale. ( 16 ) ON plain reading of the personal promotion scheme (PPS) it is obvious that the concerned employees become eligible for consideration for personal promotion to the next higher scale if and when he completes eight years without promotion in a particular scale. It cannot be contended that the intention behind this scheme was only to offer an option to the employee to avail of such personal promotion at the first point of time in his career when he fails to get regular promotion for a period of eight years in the same scale. Mere refusal to avail offer of personal promotion scheme cannot be characterised as having received it or availed it. It is the right of the employee to avail of such a benefit and receive the same in any scale subject to the maximum scale prescribed in prerevised scale of Rs. 550-990 (Revised scale Rs. 1640-2900) ( 17 ) THE first petitioner become due and eligible for personal promotion in July 1978 whereas the second petitioner become due and eligible for the same in January 1979. Both were accordingly offered such personal promotion benefits by the respondent-IIMA and there is no dispute about the fact that both of them had chosen to decline as they were expecting the regular promotion within short period. It is quite clear from the correspondence exchanged between the petitioners and the IIMA that both the petitioners requested the IIMA that they are not desirous of availing of the offer made to them as they were expecting their regular promotion. One of the objects of the personal promotion scheme was to give personal promotion scheme benefit after qualifying period of eight years service in one scale was to see that the person can get benefit of higher pay even in absence of regular promotion benefit. When a person is expecting regular promotion in the regular promotion scheme obviously he may not be interested to avail of the personal promotion scheme which is `ad- hoc one. Therefore both the petitioners submitted letters to the respondent-IIMA stating therein that since they were expecting regular promotion they were not ready and willing to accept the offer of personal promotion. Such an action on the part of the petitioners would not deprive them from claiming the benefit of personal promotion scheme in the higher permissible pay-scale. Therefore both the petitioners submitted letters to the respondent-IIMA stating therein that since they were expecting regular promotion they were not ready and willing to accept the offer of personal promotion. Such an action on the part of the petitioners would not deprive them from claiming the benefit of personal promotion scheme in the higher permissible pay-scale. Therefore the respondents cannot debar the petitioners from availing of the personal promotion in the high erpay-scale under the scheme which is permissible. So merely on the ground that the petitioners have declined to accept or to take the personal promotion offered to them does not disqualify them from availing of such benefit in the higher scale subject to pre-revised pay-scale ceiling up to Rs. 550 ( 18 ) AS seen earlier the scheme does not specifically provide exclusion in the event of refusal of the offer. It may be mentioned that the doctrine of expressum facit cessare tacitum which means `when there is express mention of certain things then anything which is not mentioned is excluded. What is mentioned in the present case is that availing or receiving of such a benefit once in the career in the Institute. It does not say that declining or refusing to avail will result into negation of the said right. The aforesaid doctrine shall apply to the facts of the present case squarely. This well-known maxim is a principle of logic and common sense and not merely a technical rule of construction. Express mention excludes everything which is not there. It is found that the intention behind the personal promotion scheme was to see that an employee during the service life in the Institute once is given benefit of the personal promotion scheme subject to maximum pay-scale pre-revised Rs. 550 when he is not likely to get higher scale by getting regular promotion. It cannot be contended even for a moment that a person who had declined at the lower pay-scale will be debarred from claiming such a right in the higher scale which is permissible under the scheme. If such a construction as claimed by the respondent-IIMA is allowed in all probability it would frustrate the entire design with which the Scheme is evolved. If such a construction as claimed by the respondent-IIMA is allowed in all probability it would frustrate the entire design with which the Scheme is evolved. ( 19 ) THE petitioners have also contended that the similarly situated six persons as aforesaid have been granted the benefit of personal promotion scheme twice whereas they are refused even once. There is no dispute about the fact as reflected from the aforesaid chart that six employees as aforesaid have been given benefit of the personal promotion twice. However what is sought to be explained by the respondent-IIMA is that those six persons are given benefit of personal promotion scheme twice in view of the policy decision incorporated in the notice dated 1/12/1978 Therefore it is contended that the petitioners were not similarly situated to the case of those six employees. In fact there appears some substance in the petitioners contention that they are discriminated by the IIMA by refusing to give benefit of the Personal Promotion Scheme while granting the same to the aforesaid six employees twice. However this aspect is not required to be discussed in greater details as on the first count as aforesaid the petitioners are going to succeed and it goes to the root of the matter. In the net result it would not be necessary at this juncture to examine as to whether discriminatory treatment is given to the present petitioners in refusing the personal promotion scheme benefit. ( 20 ) AN attempt is made on behalf of the respondent-IIMA to convince this court that the respondents are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. This contention raised on behalf of the respondents is totally meritless. It is rightly said that a drowning man will try to catch a straw. The respondent-Institute (IIMA) cannot be said to be not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent-IIMA has been established by the Government of India in collaboration with the Government of Gujarat and Industry. The Director of the IIMA is selected and appointed by the Central Government. All the Rules and Bye-laws as regards the conduct of the aforesaid Institute are required to be made with the approval of the Central Government. The Central Government has power to appoint persons to review work and progress of the Institute. The Director of the IIMA is selected and appointed by the Central Government. All the Rules and Bye-laws as regards the conduct of the aforesaid Institute are required to be made with the approval of the Central Government. The Central Government has power to appoint persons to review work and progress of the Institute. The Chairman of the Board of the Institute is appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the State government. It is also not disputed that there are four Nominees of the Central Government and two of the Government of Gujarat on the Board of the Governors of the Institute. There is one representative of the All India Council of Technical Education. The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the Chief Consultant of Planning Commission are two out of four representatives of Commerce Industry Labour and other interests on the Board. The Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) Government of Gujarat is one of the Members co-opeted by the Board. The Director of the Institute is Ex-officio Member of the Board. The budget estimates of the Institute are required to be submitted to the Central Government. The Institute receives huge grants from the Central Government and the State Government. The Institutes capital assets and properly have been mainly provided for by the Central Government and the State Government. The Institutes recurring expenses are met with the funds supplied by the Central Government. All these facts are not in dispute. All these averments regarding the constitution and the working of the administration of the IIMA are not controverted specifically in the affidavit-in-reply. The aforesaid averments would undoubtedly go to show that the overall effective controls including the funds and the supervision remain with the Government at the Centre and the State. . ( 21 ) APART from that it cannot be contended that the Institute does not perform public functions in the field of Management Education and Research. In reality the IIMA is performing public functions in the field of Management Education Training and Research and is also involved in like such activities. The Institute is therefore a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The proposition of law on this score is very much settled. In reality the IIMA is performing public functions in the field of Management Education Training and Research and is also involved in like such activities. The Institute is therefore a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The proposition of law on this score is very much settled. ( 22 ) IN the Case of Sainik School Employees Association v. Defence Minister cum Chairman Board of Governors Sainik School Society AIR 1989 SC 88 it was held by the Apex Court of the Nation that the Sainik School Society is a State. The entire functioning is by the State Government and Central Government. The overall control vests in the Governmental authority. The main object of the society was to run the school and to prepare the students for the purpose of National Defence Academy. The defence is one regale function of the State. Therefore it was held by the Apex Court of the Nation that the Sainik School Society though registered under the Societies Registration Act is a State. Therefore it was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court and it was open for the Court to decide as to whether the conditions of service were infringed or not. ( 23 ) SIMILARLY the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the Case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalij Mujib Sahera. AIR 1981 SC 487 was considering whether the society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1961 could be a State within the meaning of Article 12. Bhagwati J. as he then was speaking for the unanimous Bench culled out six tests from the judgment in the International Airport Authoritys case ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ). Those test are as under :" (1) `one thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2 ). `where the financial aspect of the State is of much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (3) `it may also be a relevant factor. . . whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected. (2 ). `where the financial aspect of the State is of much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (3) `it may also be a relevant factor. . . whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected. (4) `existence of `deep and pervasive State Control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (5) `if the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely to governmental functions it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) `specifically if a department of government is transferred to a corporation it would be strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government". ( 24 ) APPLYING the aforesaid tests it cannot be said even for a moment that the respondent - IIMA is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In fact the entire functioning is as such by the State Government and the Central Government. Overall control vests in the Governmental Authorities. The main object of the Institute is to prepare students for the purpose of modern management and alike aspects of the management. Once it is held that the IIMA is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India application of Articles 14 and 16 would be attracted. Therefore the contention that the IIMA is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is totally devoid of any substance Hence it must be rejected. ( 25 ) NOW the question would arise as to what appropriate relief the petitioners should be granted in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners have claimed that they should have been given benefit of the personal promotion scheme with effect from 1/02/1987 or in the alternative first petitioner with effect from July 1986 and second petitioner with effect from January 1987 with all consequential benefits like arrears etc. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners herein are at present in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (prerevised pay-scale of Rs. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners herein are at present in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (prerevised pay-scale of Rs. 550 which is permissible under the personal promotion scheme. Therefore it is contended that the petitioners should be given such a benefit by directing the respondent-lima as if they had been placed in the higher pay-scale by virtue of grant of the personal promotion under the said Scheme and could be given higher scale of Rs. 2200-4000. It is also submitted that the petitioners would be entitled to claim the personal promotion benefit with effect from the date on which they completed eight years service in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 550- 900 (revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900) ( 26 ) IT may be mentioned that it is the right of the petitioners to claim the personal promotion as observed herein above. However it may also be noted that under the said Scheme the Standing Committee has to consider and examine the cases of the petitioners from various angles. The eligibility under the personal promotion scheme is prescribed and there is no dispute about this aspect. The Standing Committee will have to undergo the procedure prescribed under the Scheme. The procedure for grant of such benefit is mentioned in Clause- II at page 17. It reads as under :ii. Procedure for consideration : 2. 1 Standing Committee of the Institute considers and recommends cases for personal promotion. The Committee generally consist of four senior employees with a faculty member as Chairman. 2. 2 Employees who meet the eligibility criteria mentioned above are considered for personal promotion by the Standing Committee. Their cases alongwith their confidential reports as well as any other reports on them regarding disciplinary action etc. are submitted to the Standing Committee. 2. 3 The annual confidential reports given by the Supervisors on an employee is quantified on the scale ranging from 1 to 5. The eight annual confidential reports received on an employee is quantified on this basis. 2. 4 Only those who have scored a minimum of 2. 5 are considered for personal promotion. 2. 5 Apart from the quantitative score the Committee takes into consideration other inputs like punishment given sequel to disciplinary action consistent adverse comments behaviour conduct etc. 2. The eight annual confidential reports received on an employee is quantified on this basis. 2. 4 Only those who have scored a minimum of 2. 5 are considered for personal promotion. 2. 5 Apart from the quantitative score the Committee takes into consideration other inputs like punishment given sequel to disciplinary action consistent adverse comments behaviour conduct etc. 2. 6 Persons recommended by the Standing Committee are given personal promotion from the date on which increment falls on the present scale". ( 27 ) IT is very clear from the aforesaid procedure prescribed that on being eligible and having not claimed the personal promotion benefit at any time during the service career at the Institute the case of such employee is required to be examined by the Standing Committee in view of the procedure prescribed. It would be therefore neither expedient nor desirable for this Court to straightway grant the personal promotion benefit. The respondent-Institute (IIMA) interpreted the cases of the petitioners in the manner and mode which is neither acceptable nor sustainable. Mere denial to avail of the benefit or offer of personal promotion made to the petitioners would not ipso facto debar the petitioners from being considered for the benefit of personal promotion scheme in pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 550-900 (revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900) and that too in the juxtaposition qua the six employees who are already given such a benefit twice. In the circumstances it would be desirable to direct the respondents to reconsider the cases of the petitioners for grant of personal promotion under the PP Scheme. The respondents are therefore required to be directed to consider de novo the petitioners cases regardless of refusal by them to avail of such offer or benefit in the past for personal promotion in the pre-revised payscale of Rs. 550-900 (revised pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900) as early as possible as per the procedure prescribed in the said scheme and also to consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of consequential and incidental benefits in the services. ( 28 ) IN the result the petitioners succeed. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners de novo for the purpose of grant of personal promotion benefit under the personal promotion scheme by resorting to the prescribed procedure under the scheme with effect from 1 (in the pre-revised payscale Rs. ( 28 ) IN the result the petitioners succeed. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners de novo for the purpose of grant of personal promotion benefit under the personal promotion scheme by resorting to the prescribed procedure under the scheme with effect from 1 (in the pre-revised payscale Rs. 550-900) (revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900) and irrespective of refusal of earlier offer if they are otherwise found fit for the benefit of the personal promotion to grant all consequential and incidential monetary and service benefits. ( 29 ) SINCE the master is old one the respondents are directed to decide the cases of the petitioners as early as possible but not later than 31/12/1991 ( 30 ) RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with costs which is quantified at Rs. 1 500 (RPV) Petition partly allowed. .