JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of incorporate direction upon the respondent-authority to consider the case of promotion of the petitioners from the post of Staff Nurse Grade-A to Sister Tutor (Junior) in terms of Jharkhand Nursing Cadre Appointment, Promotion and Service Condition Rule, 2012 on the ground that petitioners are fulfilling all eligibility criteria in terms of the aforesaid rule. The second prayer has been made that petitioners have been allowed to discharge the duty in the higher post, therefore, they are entitled to get 20% of officiating allowance and in terms of the fact that they have discharged duty on the higher post. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are working as Staff Nurse Grade-A since they have been appointed by erstwhile State of Bihar. Thereafter on the bifurcation of the State of Bihar by coming into the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, 45 posts have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand and all the 45 posts of Sister Tutor (Junior) are vacant. He submits that out of 45 posts, only one post is being held on substantive capacity, therefore, remaining 44 vacancies are being filled up on the basis of in-charge capacity and the petitioners are amongsts them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when vacancies are available, the employees are eligible to be considered for promotion, running the department on ad-hoc basis is not proper. Since the petitioners are being deprived from their opportunity to be considered for regular promotion in the higher post. This situation is going on since the year 2003 and hence this writ petition. Their further grievance is that they are also not being paid the officiating allowance as per the provision of service rule which provides that in case of posting in in-charge capacity, 20% of the total salary would be admissible by way of officiating allowance. 4. Mr. This situation is going on since the year 2003 and hence this writ petition. Their further grievance is that they are also not being paid the officiating allowance as per the provision of service rule which provides that in case of posting in in-charge capacity, 20% of the total salary would be admissible by way of officiating allowance. 4. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C), appearing for the Staterespondent, by referring to the counter affidavit has submitted that it is not in dispute that the cadre allocation of the posts has been done after bifurcation of the State but the rule for promotion has been made only in the year 2012 and therefore, the state-authorities were having no option but to run the department through posting in in-charge capacity but after enactment of the Recruitment/Promotion Rule, 2012 endeavours are being taken to fill up the post on regular basis on the basis of the aforesaid rule. He has referred to paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit and submitted that that promotion to the post of Sister Tutor (Junior) is under progress and it will take at least two months time in completion of the process. 5. Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the stand taken by the State-respondent in the counter affidavit, as referred in para-11 is of 18th May, 2016 and on that date the averment has been made that the process would be completed within two months, but even after lapse of about more than two and half years the final decision has not been taken even though the departmental promotion committee has also been constituted for scrutinising and assessing the candidature of one or the other candidate to assess their suitability and eligibility to extend the benefit of promotion to the post of Sister Tutor (Junior). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent, in all fairness, has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the competent authority of the State Government to complete the process of promotion by taking final decision within stipulated period. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent, in all fairness, has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the competent authority of the State Government to complete the process of promotion by taking final decision within stipulated period. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, the two fold claims have been made by the petitioners; first pertains to promotion to the post of Sister Tutor (Junior) from Staff Nurse Grade-A and second pertains to 20% of officiating allowance to be given on the ground that the petitioners have been directed to discharge their duty in in-charge capacity to the higher post. 8. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition at para-15 that out of total post available before bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, 45 posts of Sister Tutor (Junior) has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand. One post is being held by an employee on substantive basis and remaining 44 posts are being occupied by the Staff Nurse Grade-A by directing them to discharge their duties in in-incharge capacity as Sister Tutor (Junior). It is in this light ,the instant writ petition has been filed for seeking the aforesaid prayer. 9. If the State has created posts, it is to be occupied by the person on substantive basis so that the employee may get lien of that post and on the other hand the department may run smoothly. The ad-hocism has been deprecated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. It is for the reason that the ad-hocism does not lead to smooth functioning of the administration. It is not in dispute that if a post is created having got concurrence by the Finance Department, it is to be filled up on substantive basis. The reason for this, apart from smooth functioning of the department, the incumbent claims 20% of the salary by way of officiating allowance, that will ultimately lead burden on the state exchequer. Further, the employees who are being asked to discharge duty in in-charge capacity are subjected to exploitation as because the work of the higher post is being taken but in the less quantum of salary. 10. Further, the employees who are being asked to discharge duty in in-charge capacity are subjected to exploitation as because the work of the higher post is being taken but in the less quantum of salary. 10. It is in this light, the stand taken by the State-respondent in the counter affidavit needs to be appreciated whereby and whereunder the stand has been taken that the rule for recruitment/promotion for this category of employees have been made in the year 2012 and thereafter the endeavours are being made to fill up the post. This Court is not making any comment upon the issue of creation of the rule in the year 2012, but even after the enactment of the rule, 2012, now 2018 is at the verge of end but final decision for promotion has not yet been taken. However, at para-11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that within two months the matter of promotion shall be decided, very peculiar, the aforesaid affidavit has been sworn on 18th May, 2016, therefore, from the date of swearing of that affidavit two and half years has also expired but till date the matter of promotion has not been decided finally even though the departmental promotion committee has been constituted as is evident from the counter affidavit. 11. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the appropriate direction needs to be issued to the competent authority of the State Government to complete the process of promotion to fill up the post of Sister Tutor (Junior) on substantive basis on the basis of the admissible rule and after assessing the suitability and eligibility of one or the other candidate decision to that effect shall be taken. 12. The final decision to that effect shall be taken by the authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. So far as the question of 20% officiating allowance is concerned, the individual petitioner is at liberty to raise this issue before the competent authority which will be examined by them and if found to be admissible, the same shall be disbursed in their favour within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case any adverse decision is taken, the speaking order shall be passed which shall be communicated to individual petitioner. In case any adverse decision is taken, the speaking order shall be passed which shall be communicated to individual petitioner. 14. With these observations and directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of.