JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Chanda, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. As the grievances raised and the reliefs sought for in these seven writ petitions are same, the writ petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The question that requires for adjudication in these batch of writ petitions on their pleaded facts is as to whether this Court under judicial review can issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to implement any of the reliefs as sought for in the writ petitions. 3. The facts and the relief sought for are exactly same in all the writ petitions, therefore, instead of narrating the facts of each case, the facts of only one case viz., W.P. (C) (SH) No. 22812010, Shri Dipak Chakraborty v. Union of India and Ors., are being adverted to so as to get a proper understanding of the issues involved. 4. The petitioner in W.P. (C) (SH) No. 228/2010 herein who is holding the post of JCO (Bridge & Roads) (B & R, in short) for the last more than 20 years has approached the Court seeking the following reliefs :-- a. To promote/upgrade the petitioner from the post of JCO, (B & R)/Naib Subedar to the rank of Subedar at least w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in terms of Government of India," Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, resolution bearing letter No. 50(1)/1C/97 dated 20.09.1997 and also in the light of Govt. Of India's order bearing letter No. 27012/1/97 PC Cell/PE.I dated 10.10.1997 with all consequential service benefits; b. To provide adequate promotional avenues, scale of pay, rank and status at par with diploma Engineers working in engineering trade in other central paramilitary forces namely ITBP, BSF, etc. in the light of the decision contained in the Government of India's order dated 10.10.1997; c. To implement the resolution bearing letter No. 50(1)/16/97 dated 20.09.1997 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure as in the light of Government of India order bearing letter No. 7012/1/97 PC Cell/PE.I dated 10.10.1997 in respect of the incumbent holding the post of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar in Assam Rifles. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Chanda, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the following facts as veil as the grievance raised by the petitioner :-- a. The writ petitioner having the eligible qualification, i.e. Diploma in Civil Engineering was initially appointed under the Directorate of Assam Rifles in the Engineering Trade as Engineer, Junior Commissioned Officer ('JCO' for short) (B & R) in the rank of Naib Subedar on 12.10.1989 and is now holding the said post without having any promotion to the higher cadre though' more than 20 years have elapsed by now. b. The Record Office Instruction ('ROI' for short) No. 4/2002 issued by the respondent Assam Rifles provides that on completion of 3 years service in the rank and status of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar, the employee on the lower cadre is eligible for promotion to the grade of Subedar, subject to availability of vacancy. The above instruction further provides that an employee holding the post of Subedar is eligible for promotion to the post of Subedar Major subject to availability of vacancy meaning thereby there is no scope of promotion to the next cadre in view of Recruitment Rules 2000 and Restructured Peace Establishment of Assam Rifles 2003, as the number of posts of Engr. JCO vis-à-vis their cadre structure as depicted below would amply demonstrate that there is less promotional avenues, whereas in the other wing of the Assam Rifles including Surveyor Trade along with Central Para Military Forces, Central Police Organization (CPO for short), Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, etc. there are promotional avenues in all other Organizations and Trades, thereby the employees holding the post of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar are discriminated in the matter of promotion. there are promotional avenues in all other Organizations and Trades, thereby the employees holding the post of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar are discriminated in the matter of promotion. c. The other wing of the Assam Rifles and other central organizations as indicated above has been upgraded, whereas such up gradation has not been done in respect of Naib Subedar (B & R) and as a result thereof the petitioner has been deprived of equal treatment and the cadre of JCO (B & R) under Recruitment Rules would disclose that there is no scope of promotion from the cadre of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar to the higher ups because of the cadre structure shown below :-- Subedar Major (B & R) 1 Subedar (B & R) 12 Naib Subedar (B & R) 47 Total 60 d. In order to avoid disparity in the rank and status of the JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar including all CPOs, the respondent authorities have taken a resolution in the year 1997 under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Resolution bearing letter No. 50(1)/IC/97 dated 20.09.1997 and the Government of India's order) bearing letter No. 2701211/97/PC Cell/PE.I dated 10.10.1997 to maintain parity in the rank, pay and status of all CPOs and to rationalize the rank and pay scale of the Assam Rifles Personnel, among others and the said resolution has been given effect to from 1.1.1996 whereof the Assam Rifles has implemented the aforesaid resolutions, except in the trade of Naib Subedar (B & R) which resulted in hostile discrimination in case of the petitioner holding the post of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar and has therefore approached this Court to mitigate the disparity in the rank and status of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar under the Directorate of Assam Rifles, inasmuch as, the personnel belonging to all other categories have been enjoying the benefit of upgraded scale of pay with effect from 10.10.1997. e. It is the further case of the petitioner that in other CPOs like BSF, ITBPF etc. e. It is the further case of the petitioner that in other CPOs like BSF, ITBPF etc. promotional avenue for the Diploma holder Engineers has been provided up to the level of Group-A post, but such an opportunity has not been provided in the Assam Rifles in respect of the persons belonging the cadre of Naib Subedar (B & R) with the qualification of Diploma in Engineering although the decision has been taken by the Government of India way back in the year 1997 to bring parity in the rank, pay and status of all CPO's. f. Although the petitioner has represented to the respondent on the subject-matter, the same have evoked no response and the grievance of the petitioner as regards up gradation of his post to that of Subedar has not been met. Notwithstanding the decision of the Government of India as mentioned above, nothing has been done to rationalize the rank, status etc of the post of Naib Subedar (B & R) and to bring it at par with the analogous posts in the other CPOs/CPMFs. g. As a result, the petitioner in the cadre of Naib Subedar (B & R) in the Engineering Trade has been suffering acute stagnation. h. Though the respondent Assam Rifles have taken up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs nothing has been done till date and as such, the action of the respondents in not up-grading the post of Naib Subedar (B & R) to the post of Subedar is without any rational or objective criterion particularly when they have granted such up-gradation in respect of the other trades in the Assam Rifles. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chanda has referred the following decisions:-- i. (1989) 4 SCC 1635, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anr. v. KGS Bhatt & Anr.; ii. (1990) Supp SCC 688, Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India; iii. (2004) 9 SCC 65 , State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy) iv. (2008) 1 SCC 586 , Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. 7. On the pleaded facts as averred in the writ petition. Mr. v. KGS Bhatt & Anr.; ii. (1990) Supp SCC 688, Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India; iii. (2004) 9 SCC 65 , State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy) iv. (2008) 1 SCC 586 , Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. 7. On the pleaded facts as averred in the writ petition. Mr. Shyam, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that considering the weak promotional prospect, the petitioner has been granted with the benefits of Assured Career Progression (in short ACP) Scheme twice, i.e. on 11.10.2001 and further on 12.10.2009 and as such, he cannot have any further grievance. 8. Mr. Shyam has further contended that admittedly there is lesser number of vacancies. The promotion of the petitioner can be considered only upon the availability of vacancies and on functional requirements and not otherwise, more so, on the entry in the service, the petitioner has not opted for the post of Surveyor Assistant and therefore, he now cannot seek promotion with other trades. However, Mr. Shyam has contended that the Assam Rifles has also taken up the case With the Ministry of Home Affairs for up gradation and the same is still pending for consideration with the Ministry and the decision taken, by the competent authority would be made known to the concerned employees/petitioner as and when made, which do not require to issue a writ of mandamus considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Considered the arguments advanced. Perused the pleading of the contesting parties. Admittedly the cadre structure of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar and their promotional avenues depict that the promotional prospect of the JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar is very bleak which cannot be allowed to continue for any further date though the respondent authorities in its letter bearing No. 11014/A-84/2010/14 dated 05.01.2010 and No. 29029/Misc/A-2009/4351 dated 29.12.2009 intimated the petitioner that 50:50 ratio of Naib Subedar and Subedar has already been forwarded to Ministry of Home Affairs by the HQ, DGAR and the matter is pending for consideration. 10. 10. Admittedly the other organizations under the Central Government viz., Indian Railways, CPWD, MES, CWC, CGWB, BRO a GREF are guided under their respective sets of Acts and Rules, whereas the Assam Rifles is guided under the Recruitment Rules 2000 and, Restructured Peace Establishment of Assam Rules 2003, wherein the number of post of Engineer JCO's' and their promotional avenues has been prescribed which would go to show that the promotional avenues of the cadre of JCO (B & R)/Naik Subedar are very bleak which, however have been taken into consideration by the Government of India wherein 50:50 ratio of Naib Subedar/Subedar would be made' to ventilate the grievances of the petitioner. But it has not been implemented till date which has caused a serious concern amongst the employees holding the post of JCO (B & R)/Naib Subedar under the Directorate of Assam Rifles though the benefits under ACS and Modified petitioner. But it has been stated on oath that incumbents who are working as Sa-II has been upgraded to the rank of Subedar even though they have been granted the ACP and MACPH. 11. It is also admitted that in other organizations there are scope of promotional avenues but the same has not been made available to the employees like the petitioner which deserves due consideration from the respondent authority. It is, therefore, felt necessary to direct the Director General of Assam Rifles respondent No. 2 to take up the matter with the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to implement their own commitment rationalizing rank, structure and pay scales of non-gazetted cadres of Assam Rifles following the approval 'of the Government of India as was done in case of other organizations and give all consequential benefits with effect from 01.01.1996 as has been given to other categories of employees. 12. In the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (supra), the Council filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT for short), Bangalore Bench, whereby, and where-under the CAT allowed the claim of the respondent, directing the appellant CSIR to consider his case for promotion with all consequential benefit in terms of the bye-laws framed by the appellant CSIR for regulating promotion of technical and scientific staff. Dismissing the appeal filed by the CSIR, Supreme Court has held at para 9 as thus, -- ...He was however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary of the appellant's management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organization public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employees a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system.' The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organization. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward." The organization that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions. The appellant appears to have overlooked this basic requirement of management so far as respondent 1 was concerned till NR & AS was introduced. 13. In the case of Dr. Ms O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India (supra), while allowing the petition with directions to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union of India" inter alia for providing suitable promotional avenue for the 'A' group Scientists in the non-medical wing of the establishment of Director General of Health Services within a period of four months, the Supreme Court has observed as thus,-- Promotion is a normal incidence of service. There is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the Non-medical 'A' Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed. 14. In the case of State of Tripura (supra), the Supreme Court, in a similar circumstance while directing the State Government to pay two promotions in the next higher scale of pay upon his completion of 12 years and 24 years in service, observed as follows :-- It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case, where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Article 11 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India/Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the Scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded if from doing so. When questioned, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded if from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the appellant should have followed the said principle. However, the benefit of schemes ACP and MACP have already been granted to the petitioner. Hence, the case so cited would not be applicable in the instant case in hand. 15. In the case of Dineshan K.K. (supra), the Apex Court did not interfere with the decision of the High Court since there is an admission of disparity and anomaly of the central government which, however, would not be applicable in the instant case since the matter is pending for decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 16. For the foregoing reasons and discussions and keeping in view the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, I find enough justification to dispose of these writ petitions with direction to the respondent authorities. 17. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 2, the Director General of Assam Rifles to take up the matter again with the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for up gradation from the post of JCO B&R/Naib Subedar to the rank of Subedar w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, resolution bearing letter No. 50(1)/IC/97 dated 29.09.1997 and also in the light of Government of India's order "bearing letter No. 27012/1/97 PC Cell/PE.I dated 10.10.1997 with all consequential service benefits. The whole exercise would be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The Court trusts and believe that the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India will look into the grievances of the petitioners earnestly and take a decision within the aforesaid time frame keeping in mind the observations contained hereinabove. The Court trusts and believe that the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India will look into the grievances of the petitioners earnestly and take a decision within the aforesaid time frame keeping in mind the observations contained hereinabove. With the above observation and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.