JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who is continuing as a Building Supervisor under the Orissa State Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar, in short, “the Corporation”, has filed this petition seeking for a direction to treat him as a regular employee w.e.f. 5.11.1982 and to allow him Time Bound Advancement scale of pay w.e.f. 5.11.1997 and promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager. 2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Corporation in daily news paper “The Prajatantra” on 3.5.1982 inviting applications for appointment as Building Supervisor in the scale of pay of Rs.320-750/-, the petitioner applied for the same and following a due procedure of selection, he was appointed as Training Supervisor from 5.11.1982. On completion of his training vide office order dated 23.6.1986, the petitioner was allowed to draw the scale of pay of Rs.320-750/- w.e.f. 15.6.1986, but the said scale of pay was reduced to Rs.320-550/- vide office order dated 23.7.1987 on the ground that Building Supervisor is equivalent to Building A.S.I. and was allowed the scale of pay admissible to the Building A.S.I. Against the said reduction of scale of pay, the petitioner made a representation on 31.8.1988 before the authority. Instead of considering the same, the petitioner was retrenched from service vide letter dated 3.2.1988. On the very same day, the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment for a period of 89 days in the scale of pay of Rs.840-1345/- and again he was retrenched from service vide order dated 17.7.1990. Challenging the said order of retrenchment, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.J.C. No. 601 of 1991, which was disposed of vide order dated 2.12.1991 directing the authorities to absorb him in the scale of pay Rs.840-1345/- without back wages. This Court further directed that the said period would be computed for calculation of other service benefits admissible to the petitioner. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of six months, which was extended from time to time. Challenging the said ad hoc appointment, again the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 8229 of 1992 seeking for regularization of services and to treat him as permanent employee under the opposite party no.1-Corporation. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of six months, which was extended from time to time. Challenging the said ad hoc appointment, again the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 8229 of 1992 seeking for regularization of services and to treat him as permanent employee under the opposite party no.1-Corporation. This Court by order dated 7.2.1996 directed for regular absorption of the petitioner instead of periodic appointment given to him. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner is continuing in the said post of Building Supervisor. Even though he has completed 15 years of service, he has not been extended with Time Bound Advancement scale of pay admissible to the post as per the O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 giving effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioner filed a representation before opposite party no.1 on 29.9.2002 to consider his case for grant of Time Bound Advancement scale of pay. Despite such representation, the petitioner’s case has not been considered as a regular employee with effect from his initial date of joining, i.e. 5.11.1982 and in the meantime, he has completed three years Correspondence Diploma (Civil) under JRN, Rajasthan Vidyapitha University, Udaypur in the year 2007, which has been reflected in the service book of the petitioner. Even though he has passed the Diploma in Engineering (Civil), his case has not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager. That apart, he has not been allowed to work independently and instead he has been directed to work under an ad hoc employee. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that though the petitioner has completed 28 years of service, he has not been given any promotion. The scale of pay, which was initially granted to him at the rate of Rs.320-750/- was reduced to Rs.320-550/- on the plea that Building Supervisor is equivalent to Building A.S.I. While reducing the scale of pay, the authorities have lost sight of the fact that the Building A.S.I. has got promotional avenues to the post of Building S.I., which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Project Manager. Even though the petitioner has acquired qualification of Diploma in Engineering (Civil), but he has not been granted promotion, thereby, he is facing stagnation of post held by him. Even though the petitioner has acquired qualification of Diploma in Engineering (Civil), but he has not been granted promotion, thereby, he is facing stagnation of post held by him. That apart, Time Bound Advancement scale of pay has not been granted though by virtue of the order passed by this Court he is entitled to get continuous service. Due to stagnation and lack of promotional benefits, though Time Bound Advancement scale of pay is admissible to the petitioner, the same has not been extended to the petitioner. In addition to the same, it is urged that though the authorities are appointing persons on contractual basis against the post of Assistant Project Manager, but the petitioner’s case has not been considered for such post either by promotion or by granting the scale of pay admissible to the said post. It is further urged that promotion is a part of fundamental rights of the employees as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the employer is duty bound to create promotional avenues for all its employees. The petitioner having not been granted promotion for last 28 years, the authorities are acting contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in State of Tripura v. K.K.Roy, AIR 2004 SC 1249 , Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary (Home ) Department, Govt. of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1033 , and Union of India v. Hemarajsingh Chauhan and others, AIR 2010 SC 1682 . 4. Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel for the opposite party-Corporation while disputing the contentions raised by the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner has been allowed to officiate as Building Supervisor instead of Training Supervisor, but he has been granted consequential benefits of increments and hike in pay applicable to the post from time to time which the petitioner accepted without any protest. So far as payment of Time Bound Advancement scale of pay is concerned, the petitioner was allowed periodical increments from 15.6.1986 and was also allowed first Time Bound Advancement scale of pay on 2.12.2010 on completion of 15 years of service, which has been accepted by the petitioner. So far as payment of Time Bound Advancement scale of pay is concerned, the petitioner was allowed periodical increments from 15.6.1986 and was also allowed first Time Bound Advancement scale of pay on 2.12.2010 on completion of 15 years of service, which has been accepted by the petitioner. Though the petitioner is entitled to get second Time Bound Advancement scale of pay or ACP in 2011, only after completion of 25 years of service, the same has not been extended due to pendency of this case. So far as extension of promotional benefits is concerned, it is urged that now the Corporation is undergoing re-structuring process whereby promotional avenues have to be created for its employees, in that case promotional benefits can be granted only on restructuring of the organization and the claim made to get promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager is not admissible to the petitioner in view of the fact that the said post is a direct recruit post and therefore, the opposite parties are appointing the candidates on contractual basis instead of regular basis on open advertisement. In that view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefits as claimed by him. 5. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the admitted fact is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 5.11.1982 as Training Supervisor by following due procedure of selection pursuant to the advertisement issued in daily news paper in “The Prajatantra” on 3.5.1982. After completion of training period, he was allowed to draw the salary in the scale of pay of Rs.320-750/- w.e.f. 15.6.1986, but the said scale was reduced to Rs.320-550/- as the post of Building Supervisor has been equalized to the post of Building A.S.I.. As the services of Building Supervisor were not required, the petitioner was terminated from service w.e.f. 1.2.1988, but again he was re-appointed on ad hoc basis on 2.2.1988. Thereafter, he was disengaged once again w.e.f. 7.7.1990 due to lack of availability of work. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.J.C.No.601 of 1991, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.1991 with a direction for his absorption w.e.f. 16.12.1991 with continuity in service, but without any wages for the period the petitioner had not rendered any service. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.J.C.No.601 of 1991, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.1991 with a direction for his absorption w.e.f. 16.12.1991 with continuity in service, but without any wages for the period the petitioner had not rendered any service. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken back into service on 13.12.1991 and as such, he is continuing in service till date. But due to non-regularization of service, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing O.J.C.No.8229 of 1992 seeking for a direction for regularization of services, which was disposed of vide order dated 7.2.1996. Consequently, the petitioner was brought under regular scale of pay w.e.f. 15.6.1986, i.e., the date from which he was allowed to officiate as Supervisor instead of Training Supervisor. The consequential benefits, such as, increment and hike in pay was also allowed to the petitioner from time to time, which has been accepted by him without any protest or grievance. Thereafter, he was allowed to get periodical increments from 15.6.1986 and the first Time Bound Advancement scale of pay was granted on 1.12.2001 on completion of 15 years of service, which has been accepted by the petitioner, but the second Time Bound Advancement scale of pay or ACP though the petitioner is entitled to on completion of 25 years of service with effect from 2011, but the same has not been extended due to pendency of the present writ petition. 6. So far as the claim made with regard to promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager is concerned, the same is not admissible in view of the fact that the said post is not a promotional post, rather, it is a direct recruit post. No promotional avenue has been created for Building Supervisor in the Corporation. The post of Assistant Project Manager being a direct recruit post, no promotion can be given from the post of Building Supervisor to the post of Assistant Project Manager in the rank of Junior Engineer by way of promotion. No promotional avenue has been created for Building Supervisor in the Corporation. The post of Assistant Project Manager being a direct recruit post, no promotion can be given from the post of Building Supervisor to the post of Assistant Project Manager in the rank of Junior Engineer by way of promotion. As has been stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party-Corporation there being restructuring of posts in the Corporation, whereby the post of Assistant Project Manager has been upgraded to the post of Deputy Manager and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to get promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager is a misnomer one and he cannot get promotion from the post of Building Supervisor to the post of Assistant Project Manager by way of promotion. It is admitted that the petitioner is entitled to get 2nd Time Bound Advancement scale of pay with effect from 2011 on completion of 25 years of service, but the same has not been granted because of pendency of the case. But this Court has never restrained the opposite party-Corporation not to extend such benefits, which is due and admissible in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the opposite parties to extend the benefit of Time Bound Advancement scale of pay to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. 7. In the case of State of Tripura v. K.K.Roy (supra) the apex Court in paragraph 6 states 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 Articles 14 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 of 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 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 it 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.” 8. Similarly in Raghunath Prasad Singh(supra), the apex Court has held that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service as 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. Therefore, the apex Court directs the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunity to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organization within six months from the date of passing of the order by making appropriate amendment to the Rules. 9. In Hemarajsingh Chauhan (supra), the apex Court has held that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matter of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. 9. In Hemarajsingh Chauhan (supra), the apex Court has held that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16. The guarantee of a fair consideration in matter of promotion under Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. Applying the said principles laid down by the apex Court in the aforementioned judgments to the present context, it appears that no promotional avenues have been created for the petitioner, who is holding the post of Building Supervisor for last 28 years having requisite qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and otherwise also he is entitled for promotion to the next higher grade with higher scale of pay. Merely granting Time Bound Advancement scale of pay will not suffice the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that he is deprived of getting his promotional avenues, which every employee has a desire to get and it forms part of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution, which emanates from Article 14 the right to equality under the Constitution. Merely taking a plea that the Corporation is under restructuring process, that itself cannot deprive the petitioner to get promotion, which he is entitled to get. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the opposite party-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post by creating the avenues in conformity with the provisions of law either by restructuring or by making suitable amendment to the Rules governing the field and such benefits should be extended to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. 12. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.