JUDGMENT : The main grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that he has been denied the benefit of consideration of his claim for grant of placement in the next higher pay scale for which he has completed the requisite years of service. It is contended by the petitioner that a scheme was made by the respondents circulated on 19-7-1990 (Annexure P-4) for giving the benefit of higher placement in the pay scale on completion of 9/18/25 years of service. Such benefit was extended to Class-Ill and Class-IV employees. The object of making such a scheme was to make available at least the pay scale of a promotional post to such employees, who were working in the cadres, having less opportunity of promotion in the next cadre post. It is contended that in Clause (xiii) of the scheme it was specifically provided that the second option will be allowed in only such cases in which higher grade posts are available for promotion and the employee is eligible for promotion based on educational/professional qualification as prescribed for the promotional post by the Board from time to time. 2. It is contended that the petitioner had worked on the post of Line Attendant Grade-I (Assistant Lineman) for considerable long time but was not allowed to be given the pay scale of the Line Assistant Grade-II (Lineman) only because it was said that the petitioner has not obtained the training or a certificate of competency in overhead and/or underground cable work. It is contended that it was not the fault on the part of the petitioner in not obtaining the said training as up to the age of 50 years he was not sent for such a training by the respondents and lastly it was said that he could not be sent for such training since he has completed the age of 50 years. Accordingly, the petitioner was made to retire from the post of Line Attendant Grade-1 by a notice dated 7-5-2008, w.e.f. 30-6-2009. Since such a benefit of placement in the higher pay scale was not given to the petitioner, he has not only suffered monetary loss while in service but is continuously suffering the loss by not getting appropriate pension and retiral dues. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court in the writ petition, a reply has been filed by the respondents. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court in the writ petition, a reply has been filed by the respondents. It is contended by them that the scheme of recruitment prescribes the educational and general as well as technical qualification for appointment/promotion on the post of Line Assistant Grade-II (Lineman) in the schedule of regulations, which prescribes primary (4th standard) as minimum qualification in education and a competency certificate in overhead and/or underground cable work. The petitioner was having the educational qualification but was not having the competency certificate and since he was not to be sent for such training on account of becoming overage, his claim was not to be considered for grant of second placement in the higher pay scale as per the scheme. It is contended that though the condition mentioned in the scheme referred to hereinabove was subsequently changed inasmuch as availability of the promotional post was deleted but the condition of obtaining technical training was very much there and that being so, the case of the petitioner was not considered for grant of benefit of second higher pay scale in terms of the scheme. By issuing instructions, specific condition was made that the qualified persons in education were required to be sent for such training only up to the age of 50 years. The persons, who have attained the age of 50 years or above, were not to be sent for training. Accordingly, it is said by the respondents that rightly the claim of the petitioner was not considered and as such he is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition, according to the respondents, deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and minutely perused the record. 5. As was directed by this Court, the respondents have not been able to show that any scheme for selection was prescribed for sending any person for technical training in the training institute and that the petitioner after taking part in the said process was not selected. This makes it clear that it was the responsibility of the respondents to select and send the persons for training so as to become eligible for promotion on the next post as .prescribed in the schedule of the Regulations. This makes it clear that it was the responsibility of the respondents to select and send the persons for training so as to become eligible for promotion on the next post as .prescribed in the schedule of the Regulations. Those who were nearing the age of 50 years, were required to be sent for training on earlier occasion so that non-obtaining the certificate from training institute may not come in their way for getting the benefit of next promotion. However, if the scheme was not made in this respect by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. It is not that on his own the petitioner could have made an application to the Central Training institute for admitting him for such training. The persons are required to be sent for training by the respondents. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any fault on the part of the petitioner on account of which he could be denied the benefit of consideration for grant of second higher pay scale. 6. The other aspect is that the respondents have not clarified that any greater responsibility or a different higher technical job is required to be discharged by the Line Assistant Grade-II (Lineman). The petitioner was also working as Line Attendant Grade-I for considerable long time. If the job responsibility was same, the benefit of experience of working could not have been denied to the petitioner. Apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371 , has held that long working on one post, even on ad hoc basis, prescribes obtaining of experience of working on the said post, which cannot be said to be inferior in any manner so as to the minimum educational certificate prescribed for the said post. This being so, it was to be seen by the respondents that/the petitioner by virtue of working on the post for a long time has obtained the experience and thus was required to relax such a condition of obtaining the technical training certificate of the similar nature and to consider the case of the petitioner in appropriate manner. In fact there was no question of promotion on the next higher post. Only the pay scale of the post was to be made available as per the scheme made by the respondents. In fact there was no question of promotion on the next higher post. Only the pay scale of the post was to be made available as per the scheme made by the respondents. In that situation, merely because of prescription of such a condition, the claim of the petitioner was not to be denied. Apparently, the respondents have not at all considered the case of the petitioner in terms of his second option only because of his not obtaining the training certificate. 7. This being so, it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for placement in the second higher pay scale in terms of his option from the date of his eligibility, ignoring the obtaining of technical training certificate and in case the petitioner is found fit for grant of such a benefit, to extend the said benefit from the date the same was due. All the consequential benefits be also made available to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.