Brijesh Kumar, C. J.- Heard Mr. BC Das, learned Addl. Senior Govt Advocate, Assam appearing for the appellants and Mr. GK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Under challenge in this appeal is the order dated 21.11.95 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3659 of 1993. The State Govt has preferred the appeal and has also prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. However, the appeal was admitted keeping open the question of passing appropriate orders on the request for condoning the delay. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on that question and considering the cause shown, in our view, it is sufficient. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned. 3. By means of the impugned order the learned Single Judge has given a direction to the State Govt of Assam to create two promotional posts so that the officer working in the Publicity Wing of the Department of Weights and Measures is not forced to languish in the Department in the same rank and position till the retirement. The posts were to be created within six months. 4. While giving the above direction, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033 , Raghunath P. Singh vs. Secretary, Home (P), where it has been observed that: “Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly.” With the aid of the above observation, this Court had given the direction as indicated above. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner/ respondent was appointed as Publicity Officer in the Department of Weight and Measures, State of Assam and the said post is an ex-cadre post. It is further submitted that it would not be necessary to have more posts at the higher level, in order that promotional avenues are available in ex-cadre posts. Hence, the direction as given by this Court to create two higher posts for the officers working in the Publicity Wing of the Department of Weights and Measures is not correct. It is further submitted that it would not be necessary to have more posts at the higher level, in order that promotional avenues are available in ex-cadre posts. Hence, the direction as given by this Court to create two higher posts for the officers working in the Publicity Wing of the Department of Weights and Measures is not correct. There is only one officer, namely, Publicity Officer working in the Department in an ex-cadre post. 6. We find that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier as well when a direction was given to the-authorities to dispose of his representation in Civil Rule No. 1665 of 1993, decided on 25.6.93. In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the following order was passed: “.... the Govt has rejected the proposal for upgrading the post of Publicity Officer....... the matter has been examined at the appropriate level and it has been viewed that since the Department has made very little contribution to create public awareness about the weights and measures in the State, the question of creating any higher post in the Publicity Wing is not acceptable as such.” This decision was communicated by letter dated June 22, 1993. The said decision of the Govt is also under challenge in Civil Rule No.3659 of 1993, out of which the present appeal arises. 7. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the reasons indicated for not creating higher posts in the Publicity Wing are not relevant, nor they have any bearing on the question of creation of higher posts. It is submitted that if there was something lacking on the part of the petitioner/respondent by reason of which the Govt thought that much contribution was not made to create public awareness about the weights and measures, it was quite open to the higher authorities of the Department to indicate to the petitioner/ respondent to improve the working and to work in a manner which may bring some better results as regards public awareness about the Weights and Measures in the State. This should however be no reason to say that higher post was not to be created. It is also pertinent to consider as to how far the petitioner/respondent was responsible for not giving expected results about the awareness of weights and measures in the State. This should however be no reason to say that higher post was not to be created. It is also pertinent to consider as to how far the petitioner/respondent was responsible for not giving expected results about the awareness of weights and measures in the State. It was always open to the State Govt to make appropriate provisions for better functioning of the Wing. It is, therefore, submitted that the decision taken by the State Govt is cursory and without application of mind. 8. It is true that it will not be open to issue any positive direction to create higher posts in the Department. Nonetheless, desirability of having promotional a avenues in the service, as expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, may not be totally ignored, nor it is supposed that such observations are not to be honoured and kept in mind by the employees, more particularly, by the State, which is considered to be the model employer. 9. The grievance of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside without paying any heed to it when it can reasonably be found that a person who enters into service more than twenty years ago, is to retire in the same scale of pay without any scope of upward movement, either in the matter of higher post or higher scale. If for any reason the Govt thought that it was not possible-to create more posts in the Publicity Wing of the Department, as there may not be requirement of more persons, it can reasonably be considered that a person could be provided higher scale, may be time bound or otherwise, in the same post. 10. The petitioner has entered into service in the year 1978. Twenty one years have passed. He is stagnating in the same scale and on the same post. In the representations given by the petitioner as well as the recommendation made by the Head of the Department, certain suggestions have been found, either to en-cadre the post, or to provide higher scale of pay, as is admissible to the officers d of similar rank in the other Departments, in the light of the recommendations of the Pay Commission. 11. 11. In view of the discussions held above, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge giving a direction to create two promotional posts in the Department, we direct the appellants to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above and the observations made by us in this judgment. The Govt shall take a decision in the matter within a period of three months.