DJA. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER joined Border Road Development Board (BRDB for short) on21. 4. 1969, now a department under the Ministry of Surface and Transport, as Assistantexecutive Engineer in the General Engineering Reserve Force (GERF for short ). He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 4. 7. 1983. Central Paycommission had recommended periodical cadre review of various staff cadres atan interval of 5 years with a view to ensuring reasonable career progression to theemployees and at the same time ensure operational efficiency through comprehensivemanpower planning. On this basis Border Road Organisations conducted cadrereview in Civil Engineering cadre in the GERF on 21. 5. 1987 and orders wereissued for revising the cadre strength vide office order dated 24. 5. 1987 which wereimplemented by the Government granting promotion to the various concernedofficers. However no electrical andmechanical cadre of GERF to which cadre petitioner belongs with the result thatpetitioner stagnated in the post of Executive Engineer for 12 long years andtherefore he made representation dated 19. 1. 1995 requesting for cadre reviewand consequential measures. Vide letter dated 3. 4. 1995, respondent No. 4 howeverassessed the staff requirements in the Electrical and Mechanical Cadre with referenceto the operational requirements taking into account the mechanisation of the separateservices for construction of roads on the international border and recommendedsanction of additional posts in various cadres including the cadre of Superintendingengineer and Chief Engineer to which the petitioner was inspiring for promotion. No action had however been taken on this recommendation. In the course of theproceedings in the High Court of Gauhati CWP No. 3210/91, respondent No-4filed an affidavit to the effect that the question of conducting cadre review ofelectrical and Mechanical engineering cadres in the GERF was under consideration ofthe Government. But hower no follow up action was forthcoming. The petitionersubmitted another representation on 29. 5. 1995 for conducting cadre review of theeandm Cadre and granting him promotion against the additional posts. He pleadedthat the matter should be treated as urgent in view of the fact that he was due toattain the age of superannuation on 28. 2. 1999. There was no response to thisrepresentation. The petitionersubmitted another representation on 29. 5. 1995 for conducting cadre review of theeandm Cadre and granting him promotion against the additional posts. He pleadedthat the matter should be treated as urgent in view of the fact that he was due toattain the age of superannuation on 28. 2. 1999. There was no response to thisrepresentation. Still when no action was taken by the respondents and cadre reviewwas not undertaken, petitioner filed this petition in March 1998 wherein he prayed forthe following reliefs: "i) to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction to therespondents to conduct Cadre Review of the Electrical and Mechanicalcadre of General Engineering Reserve Force with reference to theground position which obtained at the time similar review was conducted inrespect of the sister cadre of Civil Engineering and issue orders basedthereon for sanction of additional posts in the Cadre of Superintendingengineer and Chief Engineer with effect from the same date correspondingposts were sanctioned in 1987 for Civil Engineering Cadre; II) to direct that Departmental Promotion Committee be constituted inaccordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules and the petitioner beconsidered for promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer andcivil Engineer with retrospective effect from the date his immediate juniorin the Civil Engineering Cadre was promoted; III) to further direct that all consequential benefits including fixation of payin the promotion post from the date of retrospective promotion begranted; IV) to further direct that tor the purpose of sanction of retirement benefitsincluding pension, gratuity, family pension and encashment of leave, payfixed as a result of retrospective promotion but not actually drawn in theevent of the petitioner retiring on superannuation (due date is 28. 2. 1999)be deemed to be "emoluments" within the meaning assigned to thisexpression in Rule 33 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; and V) to issue such other writ or direction or pass such other order or ordersas this Hon ble Court may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of thecase, in the interest of justice. " ( 2 ) IT may be stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, Governmentissued an order bearing No. FBRDB/02/02/88-GE. I Vol. IV dated 15. 7. 1999 approvingrestructuring of Border Roads Engineering Service (Electrical and Mechanical) bycreation/upgradation/abolition of Group a posts in various grades. " ( 2 ) IT may be stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, Governmentissued an order bearing No. FBRDB/02/02/88-GE. I Vol. IV dated 15. 7. 1999 approvingrestructuring of Border Roads Engineering Service (Electrical and Mechanical) bycreation/upgradation/abolition of Group a posts in various grades. However, ithas been stated in para 3 of the said order, "the creation, upgradation and abolition of posts in terms of the revisedcadre structure would take prospective effect. cts of CWP No. 1 112/98 above andpetitioner has also stated the identical facts and has pleaded that since cadre revievwas not undertaken inspite of repeated demands, he filed the present writ petitionon 31. 8. 1998 making same prayers as are made by the petitioner in CWFNo. 1112/98. ( 5 ) IN support of their claim for giving retrospective effect to the decision, thepetitioners have made the following submissions: I) The respondents filed counter affidavit supported by an affidavit swornin by the Deputy Director, DGBR stating, ". . . . . . . WE have already projected cadre review cases inrespect of Mechanicalengineering Officers of Border Roads Engineering Service during Nov. 87". "the Cadre Review proposals has finally been cleared by Department ofexpenditure and Sectt. BRDB has resubmitted the same in Apr. 97 forgovt. approval. " ". . . . . IT is submitted that there is no doubt that the petitioner has beenserving the department sincerely and efficiently". ". . . . . THE Cadre Review Proposals were formulated way back in 1986 andsince then have been under consideration of the Govt. at various level. . . " ". . . . THE organisation has been doing its best for approval of Cadre Reviewof BRES (Eandm) officers. But certain factors beyond its influence/control wereprobably responsible for the delay. . . . . ". II) The broad policy of the Government of India in this matter asstated invarious orders applicable to Government servants in general (which wereissued pursuant to the recommendations of various Pay Commissions) isthat the strength of the cadres in all the departments of the Govt. of Indiawithout exception should have a periodical review preferably at an interval of5 years as part of standing policy of comprehensive manpower planning witha view to enhance the performance levels of the departments and at thesame time ensure reasonable career progression of the members of thecadre. of Indiawithout exception should have a periodical review preferably at an interval of5 years as part of standing policy of comprehensive manpower planning witha view to enhance the performance levels of the departments and at thesame time ensure reasonable career progression of the members of thecadre. III) Respondent No. 4 has gone on record to the effect that there was afunctional need for additional posts in the cadre of Superintending Engineerand Chief Engineer in Electrical and Mechanical discipline vide letterno. 13803/crc/mech-Cadre/dgbr/eta dated 3. 4. 1995 but the higherauthorities did not act on his recommendation for sanction of theseposts, nor did they give any reasons, which is arbitrary and unjust. "the petitioner is virtually kept as captive in the GERF inasmuch as in theyear 1979 when he applied for appointment as Executive in NTPC, hisapplication was not forwarded by the Border Roads Organisation on the ground that the Department could not spare him. At the same time, thedepartment which held him in captivity had not discharged theresponsibility of conducting the cadre review for 38 long years. The tragicfact is that by the time 38 years are over, the petitioner has reached the lastphase of his official career. III) The lapse was entirely on the part of the respondents and equitydemands that the petitioner should be granted whatever monetary benefitwould have accrued to him had not the lapse been committed by therespondents. IV) The matter came up before the High Court of Gauhati and in the courseof the proceedings in CWP No. 3210/1991 - Kashmiri Lal Noaty Vs. Union ofindia, an affidavit was filed by the Director General, Border Roadsorganisation that the matter of cadre review of electrical and mechanicalcadres was also under consideration of the Government and thepetitioner was advised that the cadre review of civilian officers would becarried out after the same for mechanical cadre is finalised. ( 6 ) IN reply to this CM filed by the petitioner, respondents have tried to justify theprospective date of cadre review. It is interalia stated that the cadre review itself wasa long drawn process involving many agencies. The cadre review proposal forbres (Eandm) Group a officers was initiated way back in Nov 1987 and hadremained under process at various levels tilt April, 1997 when Ministry of Financeissued instructions not to entertain any proposal pertaining to creation/upgradationof post, Cadre Review etc. pending decision of the Govt. The cadre review proposal forbres (Eandm) Group a officers was initiated way back in Nov 1987 and hadremained under process at various levels tilt April, 1997 when Ministry of Financeissued instructions not to entertain any proposal pertaining to creation/upgradationof post, Cadre Review etc. pending decision of the Govt. on the recommendationsof the V Central Pay Commission. It is further submitted that initiation of aproposal does not give the right of promotion to a person. This cannot beclaimedtill the proposal is agreed by the Competent Authority and DPC is finalised. Though the Cadre Review proposals were submitted to Govt. and it is incorrect tosay that the respondent No. 4 has gone on record to the effect that there was afunctional need for additional posts in the cadre of Superintending Engineer andchief Engineer in Electrical and Mechanical Cadre. Respondent No. 4 is onlya recommending authority and his recommendations cannot be taken as finalrequirement in the cadre. The Cadre Review in respect of civilian officers cadrewas finalised before the cadre review of Mechanical Officers as the High Courtof Gauhati had set a time limit for finalising the cadre review of civilian officers. While delivering judgment in Civil Rule No,3210 of 1991, the Gauhati High Courthad only given a suggestion to consider if benefits can be given with retrospectiveeffect in Cadre Review. It is further submitted that another Civil Rule No. 2015 of1996 was filed by Sh. Hans Raj, SE (Eandm)SG, in High Court of Gauhati praying forthe Cadre Review with retrospective effect. The said Civil Rule was decided on4. 8. 1998 and the Court after deliberation has directed to finalise the Cadrereview but no directions regarding retrospective effect has been given by thecourt. Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Cadre are two separatestreams, one being line and another being staff can not be treated at parand predominance of line over staff cannot be over-ruled due to nature ofworks involved. Hence the petitioner s claim that he should be promoted from thedate when his immediate junior in Civil Engineering Cadre was promoted or thatthe Cadre Review should begiven effect with retrospective effect is not justified. ( 7 ) IT was further submitted that the petitioner had no right for seeking cadrereview itself and therefore it was not permissible for him to claim that the cadrereview should be done retrospectively. Mandamus could be issued only if thepetitioner could show legal right for cadre review itself. ( 7 ) IT was further submitted that the petitioner had no right for seeking cadrereview itself and therefore it was not permissible for him to claim that the cadrereview should be done retrospectively. Mandamus could be issued only if thepetitioner could show legal right for cadre review itself. Moreover the decisiontaken by the respondents regarding restructuring of a cadre was a policydecision and while taking this policy decision it was the prerogative of thegovernment to fix a date from which this decision was to be implemented. Insupport of aforesaid submissions, counsel for the respondents Mr. U. Hazarikarelied upon the following judgments:- 1. S. P. Shivprasad Pipal Vs. U. O. I. and Ors. reported in (1998) 4 SCC 598 "para 19: However it is possible that by reason of such a merger, thechance of promotion of some of the employees may be adversely affected,or some others may benefit in consequence. But this cannot be a groundfor setting aside the merger which is essentially a policy decision. Thiscourt in Union of India Vs. S. L. dutta examined this contention. Ins. L. Dutta case a change in the promotional policy was challenged onthe ground that as- a result, service conditions of the respondentwere adversely affected since his chances of promotion were reduced. Relying upon the decision in the State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrakantanant Kulkarni this Court held that a mere chance of promotion was not acondition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in the chance ofpromotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service. " 2) State of A. P. Vs. V. C. Subbarayudu and Ors. reported in (1998)2 SCC516. 3) Association for the Officers of the W. B. Audit and Accounts Serviceand Ors. Vs. W. B. Audit and Accounts Service Association and Ors. reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 44. "para 5: This Court has repeatedly held that merger of more than onecadre or division of one cadre into two or more cadres is an executive actand is entirely within the administrative sphere of the State Government. This Court in Reserve Bank of India Vs. N. C. Paliwal held as under: (SCRHeadnote p. 379)"the integration of different cadres into one cadre cannot be said to involveany violation of the equality clause. It is entirely a matter for the State todecide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre inits services. This Court in Reserve Bank of India Vs. N. C. Paliwal held as under: (SCRHeadnote p. 379)"the integration of different cadres into one cadre cannot be said to involveany violation of the equality clause. It is entirely a matter for the State todecide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre inits services. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicabilityof the equality clause. The integration of non-clerical with clerical servicesought to be effectuated by the Combined Seniority Scheme cannot, inthe circumstances, be assailed as violative of the principle of quality. "para 6: Again in Inder Singh vs. Vyas Muni Mishra, this Court observedas under: (SCR Headnote p. 973)"the High court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the merger of the postsof Ganna Gram Sewaks and Cane Supervisors. The merger or bifurcation of a cadre is an executive act. It is for the State toconsider whether two groups of persons working under two district postsperform the same kind of duties or not, and whether in implementing thedirective Principles, as contained in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, it isnecessary to merge the two posts into one cadre post. " ( 8 ) THE foregoing discussion would show that the Government of India has no. wtaken decision dated 15. 7. 1999 whereby cadre restructuring is done w. e. f. 15. 7. 1999. The main ground on which the petitioners justify their claim is that thereis a delay on the part of the Government to finally deciding this matter inasmuch ascadre review proposals were formulated way back in 1986 and if final decision hastaken almost 11 years and lapse is on the part of the Government, petitionersshould not suffer because of that. ( 9 ) NODOUBT, the cadre review proposals were formulated in the year 1986thereafter the matter had been under consideration of the Government at variouslevels and Government took considerable time in deciding the matter finally. However that by itself will not justify giving retrospective effect to the decision ofthe Government relating to cadre review. In reply to the CM filed by the petitioners,respondents have tried to explain the delay occurred in cadre review. Further theproposals were only recommendatory in nature and till they are finally acceptedby the competent authority, such proposals do not give any right to a person. Ultimate authority is the Government to accept or not to accept the proposals. In reply to the CM filed by the petitioners,respondents have tried to explain the delay occurred in cadre review. Further theproposals were only recommendatory in nature and till they are finally acceptedby the competent authority, such proposals do not give any right to a person. Ultimate authority is the Government to accept or not to accept the proposals. Moreover, matter regarding restructuring of a cadre is a policy decision in which theultimate discretion lies with the Government, and therefore, while taking thispolicy decision, it is the prerogative of the Government to fix a date also fromwhich such a decision is to be implemented when the petitioners have no legalright to claim cadre review, they obviously cannot stake their claim for givingretrospective effect to such resuscitating of cadre when it takes place. The CMNo. 10250/99 is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. As far as writpetitions are concerned, the main relief prayed for was direct the respondents toconduct cadre review of the Electrical and Mechanical cadre of GERF. This hasalready been done by the respondents themselves. NO further orders are required in these writ petitions which are accordinglydisposed of as such. NO order as to costs.