JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions for quashing and setting aside the decision of Nagarpalika dated 14.11.2011 and he further prays for promotion to the post of Nayak from the year 2004. The petitioner was appointed on 17.12.1982 by the respondent – Nagarpalika on probation basis. Thereafter, he was appointed on regular basis on 08.01.1983 and his services were regularised as Library Peon by Nagarpalika vide Resolution dated 24.08.1983, w.e.f. 16.07.1983. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that: 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2003, one Shri Iqbal Rahim Malik was working as Nayak and voluntarily retired from service on 31.03.2003 and hence, the post of Nayak had fallen vacant and therefore, the petitioner is claiming promotion to the post of Nayak in place of Shri Iqbal Rahim Malik. The petitioner has averred in the petition that as per rules framed by the respondent – Nagarpalika, the seniority is not only the sole criteria for giving promotion and before passing any promotion order, name of the concerned employee is required to be placed before the Selection Committee and after taking into consideration the educational qualification and other requirements, the committee approves name of the concerned employee for giving promotion. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application to the President of respondent – Nagarpalika for granting him promotion. By the Resolution No.79 dated 30.10.2004, ignoring the application made by the petitioner, the respondent Nagarpalika promoted one Shri Rafiq Gulam Naiki to the post of Nayak. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent Collector under Gujarat Nagarpalika Act, 1963, challenging the promotion order of Shri Naiki and after hearing all concerned parties, the respondent Collector vide order dated 13/16.05.2005 was pleased to set aside the resolution and it was further directed that the post of Nayak may be filled after taking into consideration the prevailing rules and regulations by placing a new proposal to the Director of Nagarpalika, Gandhinagar. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent Nagarpalika as well as Director of Nagarpalika, Gandhinagar to promote him to the post of Nayak. By Resolution No.86 dated 30.07.2007, the respondent Nagarpalika selected the petitioner for appointment to the post of Nayak by way of promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent Nagarpalika as well as Director of Nagarpalika, Gandhinagar to promote him to the post of Nayak. By Resolution No.86 dated 30.07.2007, the respondent Nagarpalika selected the petitioner for appointment to the post of Nayak by way of promotion. The said resolution was sent for approval to the Director of Panchayat / Nagarpalika vide letter dated 07.02.2008. The petitioner also requested the Director of Nagarpalika, Gandhinagar vide letter dated 18.06.2008 for doing needful. Pursuant to the aforesaid communications, respondent no.2 i.e. Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, by the letter dated 02.07.2008 informed the petitioner that needful was being done in the matter. Thereafter, inter se communications took place between the Director of Nagarpalika and Chief Officer of Nagarpalika being dated 07.02.2008, 18.06.2008, 02.07.2008, 30.08.2008 and 21.11.2008. Having waited sufficiently, the petitioner is constrained to approach before this court praying for promotion to the post of Nayak. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Mita Panchal appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the Nagarpalika vide letter dated 16.02.2017, has sent a proposal to the Collector to sanction and fill up the post by way of appointment and promotion. She has submitted that as per information received by petitioner on 27.06.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, expenditure of respondent Nagarpalika is 37%, which is less than prescribed by the State Government. She has submitted that in view of the said position, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for inaction of respondent authority in finalising his claim. 6. Learned AGP Mr.Chintan Dave was confronted by this court to the proposal sent by the respondent Nagarpalika vide letter dated 16.02.2017. He has submitted that necessary decision will be taken on the proposal sent by the Nagarpalika and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner as well as respondent authorities. 7. The case of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 14.11.2011 by respondent Nagarpalika on the ground that total expenditure exceeded 45%. In view of the information received by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, on 27.06.2016, the expenditure is far below than 45%, which is at 37%. 8. The tenor of writ petition indicates that the respondent authorities have miserably failed in addressing the concerned issue. In view of the information received by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, on 27.06.2016, the expenditure is far below than 45%, which is at 37%. 8. The tenor of writ petition indicates that the respondent authorities have miserably failed in addressing the concerned issue. The petitioner since the year 2003 has been asking for promotion despite there being vacancy, which occurred on voluntary retirement of one Shri Iqbal Rahim Malik. Instead of responding to the different communications sent to the respondent authorities by the petitioner and inter se communications amongst the respondent authorities, they have unnecessarily prolonged the issue even after proposal is sent to the Chief Officer, Nagarpalika, in the year 2017 and after six years of filing of the present petition; the same is also awaited to be resolved. There is gross remissness on the part of the respondent in deciding the issue. Hence, respondent authorities are directed to take decision on the proposal sent by the Nagarpalika within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Any further delay shall invite cost of Rs.1,000/per week in taking decision on the issue involved in the present writ petition. The respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Nayak ignoring the impugned order dated 14.11.2011, since, the Collector vide order dated 13/16.05.2005 was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner. His case should have been properly considered for promotion thereafter. The respondent Nagarpalika in the year 2011 cannot take a stand that the expenditure of Nagarpalika has exceeded 45% in wake of the order passed by the Collector dated 13/16.05.2005 and the letter dated 02.07.2008 written by the Urban Housing Department informing the petitioner that needful was being done in the matter. Thus, the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.