JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 12.5.2011, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 13730 of 2008, whereby writ petition having been preferred by the appellant-petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are that the appellant was appointed as a Work Charge Mason in Public Works Department, in the year 1979. R&P Rules prevalent then, provided for promotion of Work Charge Mason to the post of Work Mistry. The post of Work Mistry was abolished in 1986 and persons holding that post were re-designated as Road Inspector. In nutshell, case of the appellant is that after abolition of the post of Work Mistry, Work Charge Mason should have been provided promotional avenue by making necessary changes to the Rules and post, to which they could be promoted. Appellant further claimed that Work Charge Mason ought to have been considered by the respondents for promotion to the post of Road Inspector. In the aforesaid background, petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, whereby despite several requests, allegedly made by him to the respondent, promotional channel was not provided, he preferred an Original Application being OA No. 1901/2006 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which subsequently came to be registered as CWP(T) No. 13730/2008. Respondents by way of reply, stated that appellant was initially appointed as Work Charge Mason and at that time, there was a provision in the Rules for the promotion of Work Charge Mason to the post of Work Mistry. Respondents further stated that post of Work Mistry was subsequently abolished but, consequent upon abolition of post of Work Mistry, relevant Rules were amended, whereby Masons, were bifurcated into two cadres, one that of Mason Grade II and Grade III, and another of Mason Grade I. As per respondents, appellant after bifurcation, became Mason Grade II and was further promoted as Mason Grade I with effect from 1.1.1996. Respondents further claimed that since appointment to the post of Mason Grade I, was by way of promotion based on seniority from the cadre of Mason Grade II and Grade III, there is no force in the submission having been made by the appellant that he has not been provided with promotional avenues after abolition of post of Work Charge Mason. Learned Single Judge, taking note of the reply having been filed by respondent-State as well as Rules, for the post of Work Charge Mason Grade II, in the Public Works Department, dismissed the petition having been preferred by the appellant. In the aforesaid background, appellant has come before this Court, by way of instant appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 4. There is no dispute that at the time of appointment of the appellant as Work Charge Mason, there was a provision for promotion to the post of Work Mistry, from the post of Work Charge Mason, but, since the post of Work Mistry was abolished, cadre of Mason was bifurcated into two cadres, as has been taken note of above i.e. one of Mason Grade II and Grade III and, another of Mason Grade I. It is not in dispute that after aforesaid bifurcation, appellant became Mason Grade II in the pay scale of Rs.950-35-1160-40-1320-45-1500-50-1800, as per Rules contained in Annexure R-5. It is also not in dispute that appellant was further promoted to the post of Mason Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.1200-40-1320-45-1500-50-2000-60-2130, in terms of Rules as contained in Annexure R-6 i.e. R&P Rules for the post of Work Charge Mason Grade I in the Department of Public Works, Himachal Pradesh. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, while refuting submissions made on behalf of the respondent-State, that promotion from the post of Mason Grade II to Mason Grade I, is a promotion, vehemently argued that no such promotion was ever made, rather, on account of bifurcation of Cadre, merely designation of Mason Grade I was conferred upon the appellant, that too, without there being any financial benefits. Mr. Bhushan further contended that the appellant, who had been performing same and similar duties since 1979, without there being any change, was not provided with any promotion, as such, finding returned by learned Single Judge to the effect that appellant has availed promotional avenues, is totally contrary to the record. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge, failed to take note of the fact that since appellant was appointed as Work Charge Mason, next promotional channel was to the post of Work Mistry, which was later on re-designated as Road Inspector/Supervisor. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge, failed to take note of the fact that since appellant was appointed as Work Charge Mason, next promotional channel was to the post of Work Mistry, which was later on re-designated as Road Inspector/Supervisor. Had the R&P Rules been amended, appellant would have been promoted to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer, before 2000. But, aforesaid submission having been made by the learned counsel representing the appellant, appears to be ill-founded, because, there is nothing on record, suggestive of the fact that, after abolition of the post of Work Mistry, appellant could be promoted to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer, rather, this Court, after having carefully perused Annexure R-5, i.e. Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Work Charge Mason Grade II in the Department of Public Works and Annexure R-6, i.e. Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Work Charge Mason Grade I in the Department of Public Works, is of the view that appointment to the post of Mason Grade I is by way of promotion based on seniority from the Cadre of Mason Grade II and Grade III. Careful perusal of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, Annexure R-5 clearly suggests that Mason Grade II have been provided promotional avenue by way of promotion to the post of Mason Grade I. Similarly, perusal of annexure R-6, suggests that Mason Grade II having five years continuous service, can be promoted to the post of Mason Grade I, by way of promotion. 6. After having carefully perused, Recruitment and Promotion Rules as referred above, this Court sees substantial force in the arguments of Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, that the promotional avenues have been provided to the appellant as well as similarly situate persons, on account of abolition of post of Work Mistry, qua which, Work Charge Mason used to be promoted earlier. 7. In the instant case also, it emerges from the record that appellant has already been promoted to the post of Mason Grade I. After having carefully perused pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties vis-à-vis impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that appellant is stagnating and no promotional avenues have been provided to him, after abolition of post of Work Mistry. At this stage, we deem it fit to take note of judgment having been relied upon by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate in support of his case i.e. (2008) 5 SCC 100 (Food Corporation of India and others v. Parashotam Das Bansal and others). Mr. Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, while placing reliance upon aforesaid judgment, strenuously argued that introduction of selection grade, if any, does not amount to promotion, rather it is available to a limited number of employees and as such, he further contended that though employees of State have no fundamental right of promotion, but Court can direct creation of avenues of promotion in the absence of promotional avenues. 8. After having carefully perused aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, respondents were Engineering Staff in the appellant Corporation and the did not have any promotional avenues. During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, Scheme of Selection Grade was framed and some of respondents were given benefit under the same. In the aforesaid background Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “23. So far as introduction of grant of selection grade is concerned, the same does not provide for a promotional scheme. It is available to a limited number of employees. By reason thereof a promotional scheme cannot be said to have been framed. The scheme of Accelerated Career Progression is distinct and different from grant of selection grade. We have noticed hereinbefore that although such a provision has been made for the unionized employees but even then they are also entitled to grant of selection grade as well.” 9. But, in the instant case, as has been discussed above, appellant was not provided selection grade, rather he was promoted to the post of Mason Grade I, in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules as contained in Annexure R-5 and Annexure R-6. 10. True it is, in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though the employees of State have no fundamental right of promotion, but, definitely, he /she has a right to be considered. It would be profitable to take note of following portions of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court: “9. 10. True it is, in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though the employees of State have no fundamental right of promotion, but, definitely, he /she has a right to be considered. It would be profitable to take note of following portions of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court: “9. Appellant is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee of a State although has no fundamental right of promotion, it has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. 10. This Court in Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India [1990 Supp. SCC 688], opined : "7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too 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. 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 within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the no n-medical wing of the Directorate." 11. The question also came up for consideration in M/s. Ujagar Prints etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 1989 SC 972] and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Anr. v. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr. [ (1989) 4 SCC 635 ]. In the latter decision, this Court held : "9. ...It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employees a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. [ (1989) 4 SCC 635 ]. In the latter decision, this Court held : "9. ...It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages or employees a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation 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 organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See : Principles of Personnel Management by Flipo Edwin B. 4th Ed. p. 246). Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. "The organisation 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". (See : Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Pareek p.277). There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, man-power development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that he fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the Superior Court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the Court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a Superior Court of the country. 14. This Court in State of Tripura & Ors. v. K.K. Roy [ (2004) 9 SCC 65 ], upon taking into consideration some of the earlier decisions of this Court, held : "6. 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. v. K.K. Roy [ (2004) 9 SCC 65 ], upon taking into consideration some of the earlier decisions of this Court, held : "6. 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 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 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." 11. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is necessary to provide opportunity of advancement: promotion being a normal incidence of service. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is necessary to provide opportunity of advancement: promotion being a normal incidence of service. There can not be any quarrel with respect to aforesaid law, having been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court whereby duty has been cast upon State to provide opportunity of advancement/promotion to its employee, but, in the instant case, it is ample clear from the record that primarily, promotional avenues have been provided to the appellant as well as similarly situate persons, after abolition of post of Work Mistry. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that after abolition of post of Work Mistry, cadre of Mason has been bifurcated into two cadres, one of Mason Grade II and Grade III, and another that of Mason Grade I. It is also not in dispute that appellant, after bifurcation, has been promoted as Mason Grade I, with effect from 1.1.1996 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2130. Recruitment and Promotion Rules, as have been taken note of, clearly suggest that provision has been made by the respondents for promotion of Work Mason Grade II and Grade III to that of Mason Grade I. 12. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.