ORDER : Pendse, J.—This is an Appeal preferred by Maharashtra State Electricity Board, a statutory corporate body established under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to challenge the legality of Judgment dated January 10, 1991 delivered in Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1984. To appreciate the grievance of the appellant it is necessary to set out few facts which are not in dispute. 2. In the account section of the Appellant the hierarchy of the posts available is (i) Lower Division Clerk (ii) Upper Division Clerk (iii) Assistant Accountant (iv) Divisional Accountant and (v) Accounts Officers. It is not in dispute that promotion of an employee to the higher cadre is by rule of seniority-cum-merit. It is equally not in dispute that the post of Accounts Officer is not a selection post and that post is filled in form the cadre of Divisional Accountant by applying the rule of seniority-cum-merit. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Accountant on April 1, 1963 and was promoted to the post of Divisional Accountant on April 18, 1966. The respondent was compulsorily retired from service with effect from June 4, 1976. The respondent challenged the order of compulsory retirement by approaching the Industrial Tribunal and in March, 1977 the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Respondent to be reinstated in service. 3. On April 30, 1974 the Appellant published General Order No. 74 dealing with the subject of promotion to higher posts - in respect of employees who have remained in the given post for 10 years or more on May 1974. The Order inter alia recites that on the eve of the 14th Anniversary of the formation of Maharashtra, the Appellant had decided to extend special benefit to such an employee who remained on a given post for 10 years or more without the advantage of promotion. The advantage of promotion was denied to such an employee for (a) want of clear vacancies and (b) the cadre did not provide for any channel of promotion. The General Order provides that such employees should get higher grades provided they have the necessary qualification and experience required for the higher grade. In pursuance of the General Order the Appellant framed rules and the rules inter alia provide that the employee who is entitled to the benefit of General Order No. 74 must be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance. 4. In pursuance of the General Order the Appellant framed rules and the rules inter alia provide that the employee who is entitled to the benefit of General Order No. 74 must be otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance. 4. The respondent sought the benefit of higher grade as prescribed under General Order NO. 74 claiming that the respondent had completed service of a duration of 10 years in the post of Divisional Accountant by April 18, 1976. The advantage was denied to the respondent on the ground that the service record of the respondent was not upto the mark and the respondent was not fit for promotion. The denial of higher grade was challenged by the respondent by filing writ petition. The learned single Judge held that as soon as the employee completes service of 10 years in a particular cadre and the employee is not promoted to the higher post, then benefit shall automatically be given to such an employee. The trial Judge also found that it is not permissible for the appellant to determine comparative merits of the employees who fall within the ambit of the General Order and deny higher grades. On the strength of this finding the trial Judge directed the Appellant to provide higher grades to the respondent with effect from April 22, 1976. The order of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the Board is not seriously resisting the relief given to the Respondent as the respondent on reaching the age of superannuation. The learned Counsel submitted that the impugned Judgment are extremely wide and the interpretation of General Order No. 74 given by the trial Judge would create several complications and impose severe financial responsibilities on the Board. The learned Counsel urged that the trial Judge has misread the ambit and the intent of the General Order. We find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel. 5. A plain reading of the General Order makes it clear that the Board was desirous of extending special benefit to such employees who remained in the given post for 10 years or more and was denied advantage of promotion to a higher post for no fault of theirs. The denial of promotion is either because of want of clear vacancies or the cadre did not provide for any channel of promotion. The denial of promotion is either because of want of clear vacancies or the cadre did not provide for any channel of promotion. In either case the employee could not be promoted for no fault of his and the Board felt that even if the promotion to a higher post is not possible, the employee can be given benefit of higher grade. With this object in view the General Order was issued and the rules were framed. Bearing in mind the object of the rules it is clear that when an employee, as soon as he completes service of 10 years in particular post, could not be promoted because of want of clear vacancy or nonavailability of promotional channel then benefit of higher grade should be made available forth with but on condition that such employee had not disentitled himself from securing promotion for any other reason. In case the employee is guilty of any charge or the confidential record of such employee indicates that he is misfit for promotion or the employee has not passed the necessary examination then in such case the employee cannot demand higher grade as a matter of right. The Board cannot deny advantage of higher grade in case the employee is not disentitled by any reason from being considered for promotion to the higher posts. It is not open for the Appellant to consider the comparative merits of the employees who are entitled to higher grades and then determine to whom the higher grade should be awarded. The higher grade should be available to each and every employee who falls within the scope of the General Order. It is possible that there may be more than one employee who is entitled to the higher grade because of completion of 10 years or more in a given post and not being promoted to the higher post because of want of clear vacancies or lack of promotional avenues. In such cases each and every employee is entitled to higher grade. It is not open for the Board to consider at the time of entitlement to higher grades as to whether such employee will be promoted at the time when the actual vacancy arises. In such cases each and every employee is entitled to higher grade. It is not open for the Board to consider at the time of entitlement to higher grades as to whether such employee will be promoted at the time when the actual vacancy arises. It is possible that there maybe nothing adverse against an employee at the time of completion of his 10 years of service in a given post but the service record may be adverse at the time when occasion comes to grant promotion and at the time it is open for the Board to consider whether an employee who has been provided with higher grade is also entitled to actual promotion. In our judgment, looking to the object of the General Order and the impact of the rules, it is clear that an employee is entitled to the higher grade provided such employee is not found unfit for promotion at the time of completion of 10 years of his service in a given post. An employee is unfit for promotion provided he is not holding the necessary qualification or disciplinary proceedings are pending against him or action has been taken in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings disentitling him for being considered for promotion. We refer only to illustrate cases and the Board shall not deny advantage of the circular to the employee unless there is positive material to hold that the employee had disentitled himself from consideration for promotion. In our judgment, this is a proper approach to apply the advantage of General Order. The observation made by the Trial Judge in respect of the ambit of the circular are set aside and the Board must given effect to the circular in accordance with the observations made in this Judgment. 6. Accordingly appeal is dismissed and the order granting benefit to the Respondent is upheld but the findings recorded by the trial Judge as regards the applicability of the circular are set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.