Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 683 (ORI)

Jitendra Kumar Dhal v. State of Orissa

2019-12-24

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2019
JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction to the opposite parties to fix the pay in the scale of pay meant for the post of Accountant as recommended by the Sankar Committee with effect 12.05.2003, i.e., from the date, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Senior Clerk and has been directed to discharge the duties of Accountant. The petitioner further prays for revision of pay as per Pay scale prescribed with effect from 01.01.1996 (ORSP 1998) and with effect from 01.01.2006 (ORSP-2008); further prayer to direct the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer(APD (Finance); and lastly the petitioner has prayed for direction to opposite parties, more particularly the opposite party no. 1 to restructure the staffing pattern of the DRDA, keeping in mind, the recommendations made by opposite party no. 3 in its guidelines published during 1999. 2. The brief facts as delineated in the writ petition is that on the basis of a requisition placed with the Employment Exchange, Balasore by opposite party no. 3 for filling up the post of Junior Clerk and the petitioner being duly sponsored having B.Com qualification was selected and was appointed as Junior Clerk. Accordingly, he joined in the said post with effect from 24th July, 1989. During his service career, the petitioner passed DRDA Accounting procedure from SIRD, Bhubaneswar during the year 1990 and the computerization of Accounting Procedure of DRDA conducted by the NIRD, Hyderabad being duly sponsored by the DRDA, Balasore. As per the DRDA employees Service Regulations formulated in the erstwhile CD & RR Department letter dated 07.12.1989 and further communicated vide PR Department letter dated 27.09.1993 and amended vide letter dated 03.10.1998, a Junior Clerk is eligible to be promoted to the next higher rank, i.e., to the rank of Senior Clerk on completion of four years of qualifying service and thereafter to the post of Head Clerk on acquiring seven years of experience in the post of Senior Clerk/Accountant, after having passed both the preliminary as well as the final accounts examinations conducted by the Board of Revenue. Although the petitioner had passed both the examination by the end of 1995, but for the reasons best known to the authorities, he was allowed promotion to the next higher rank, i.e., Senior Clerk in the year 2003, although performing the duties of Accountant since 24.07.1989. The petitioner having requisite qualifications and experience has not been considered for promotion to the rank of Head Clerk/Accounts Officer as per prescribed guidelines though for inexplicable reason the posts were filled up on deputation. It is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner's case was considered in the DPC on 29.03.2000, the post of Senior Clerks were manned by the persons brought on deputation. The Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development-opposite party no. 2 instructed to review the service conditions of the employees of the DRDA by the State Governments and to absorb the DRDA own staff in the line department taking into account their past services at par with the respective. State Governments, but the said instructions have remained unimplemented till date resulting in dislocation of the implementation of several Central Government Programmes. It is averred in the writ petition that the DRDAs of the State have filled up the post of APD (Finance)/(Accounts Officer) by way of direct recruitment in pursuance of the letter of the PR Department dated 27.1.1997, but the promotional prospects of the employees of the DRDA has not been considered as a result of which the petitioner has to stagnate at a particular stage. In pursuance of the advertisement made by the PR Department, the petitioner had applied for the post of APD to be filled up through direct recruitment and his application through proper channel after due" recommendation by the Project Director, but his case has not been considered. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the State Government in restructuring the staffing pattern, the petitioner submitted representation to opposite party no. 2 on 11.04.2011 and the same has been forwarded by opposite party no. 2 letter dated 30.04.2011 and subsequently also several representations were made by the petitioner. The Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development stressed hard for absorption of the staff directly recruited by the DRDA in the line departments at the earliest. In view of the above the DRDAs were requested by the opposite party no. 2 letter dated 30.04.2011 and subsequently also several representations were made by the petitioner. The Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development stressed hard for absorption of the staff directly recruited by the DRDA in the line departments at the earliest. In view of the above the DRDAs were requested by the opposite party no. 1 to furnish status of vacancy position as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Due to inaction of the opposite parties in disposing of the representation, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22993 of 2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 30.01.2012 with directions to opposite party no. 1 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner filed on 11.04.2011 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order and the said representation has been rejected vide letter dated 18.06.2012 vide Annexure-7 to the writ application. The petitioner due to lackadaisical approach of the State Government in creating avenues for promotion has been compelled to approach this Court in this round of litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. A. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner during his submission has referred the guidelines on DRDA Administration (Annexure-I) to the writ application, more particularly clause (g) of the guideline on DRDA Administration of Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development 1999 is quoted hereunder: "(g) Account Wing: (i) Wherever it has not been done, the DRDAs should shift over to commercial accounting systems from the existing government account system. They should publish an annual report along with the balance sheet. The accounts wing of the DRDA should be headed by a Sr. Accounts Officer, either on deputation or by engaging the service of a charted accountant. He should be supported by an Accounts Officer each for self-employment programmes and wage employment programmes duly assisted by accountants. Wherever the Watershed programmes (WNDP/DPAP/DDP) are under implementation, an additional post of Accounts Officer may be sanctioned For Indira Awaas Yojana, one Accountant at the district level should be available to monitor the progress of the programme and the accounts. He should be supported by an Accounts Officer each for self-employment programmes and wage employment programmes duly assisted by accountants. Wherever the Watershed programmes (WNDP/DPAP/DDP) are under implementation, an additional post of Accounts Officer may be sanctioned For Indira Awaas Yojana, one Accountant at the district level should be available to monitor the progress of the programme and the accounts. (ii) One of the Accounts Officers should perform the role of internal audit." Further the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred the clause (i) of (c) Maintenance of Accounts Chapter-VI of the Guidelines on DRDA Administration of Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development 1999 is quoted hereunder: (c) Maintenance of Accounts: "(i) Principles; Separate accounts shall be maintained of this scheme and each other scheme under which the DRDA receives funds. Such maintenance of accounts is governed by the principles that the expenditure incurred is not repugnant to the objective of the scheme and is made, in accordance with the prescribed procedures. DRDA accounts are to be maintained on double entry system. The accounting procedure for DRDAs has been described in detail in the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development Publication entitled "Revised Accounting Procedure for District Rural Development Agencies/Societies, 1984 and subsequent instructions issued/to be issued from time to time. Internal Audit Cells should be specifically charged with the responsibility of overseeing and the observance of these principles. One of the Accounts Officers should perform the role of internal audit." Learned Senior Counsel has further referred to Staffing Pattern for DRDAs of the Guidelines on DRDA Administration, Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development 1999 is quoted hereunder: "Finance Wing; Post Category-A Category-B Category-C Category-D 1. Senior Accounts Officer 1 1 1 2. Account Officer 2 2 2 2 3. Accountant/Account Clerk 3 3 4 4 4. Clerk-cum-Typist/Typist 1 2 2 3 During course of hearing learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the Annexures-3, 4 and 5 wherein it has been stated the experience and expertise gained by the petitioner in the accounting procedure. Learned Senior Counsel has also further referred to rejoinder to the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that in spite of instruction of the DRDA to review the service condition of DRDA own employees and to absorb them in the line Department taking into consideration of their past services at par with respective State Government employees. Learned Senior Counsel has also further referred to rejoinder to the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that in spite of instruction of the DRDA to review the service condition of DRDA own employees and to absorb them in the line Department taking into consideration of their past services at par with respective State Government employees. But the State Government in deviation of the said instruction of the Government of India had taken steps to fill up the post on contractual basis recruiting from the open market. Moreover considering the experience/qualification and expertise including training undertaken in the field of accounts the case of the petitioner was recommended vide DRDA letter dated 01.12.2010 followed by subsequent letter no. 1921 dated 30.04.2011 for the post of Accounts Officer/APD (Finance) with the approval of the Governing Body of DRDA, Balasore. Further it has been mentioned that the post of Accountant was sanctioned vide erstwhile agriculture and co-operation Department Govt. of Odisha vide their order dated 9th March, 1981. Accordingly one Sri Susanta Kumar Nanda, a Commerce Graduate was appointed directly vide DRDA, Balasore order dated 25th April, 1982. One post of Accountant was sanctioned under IAY Scheme (Indira Awas Yojana) to monitor the progress of the programme and its accounts. The petitioner was entrusted exclusively since 1994-95 for maintenance of Accounts under IAY. Besides the services of the petitioner was also utilized to look after the accounts of the other schematic programmes of the DRDA, Balasore, who was deployed for Accounts Training vide DRDA order dated 31st December, 2004 at National Institute of Rural Development Hyderabad (NIRD). During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner' has referred to Annexure-E/3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3 wherein it has been mentioned that the post of Accounts Officer which existed in the DRDAs has been re-designated as Assistant Project Director (Finance) in Panchayatiraj Department Resolution dated 03.04.1995. Further learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein Annexure-13 the vacancy details of the sanctioned post under DRDA has been mentioned at 81. No. 13 wherein it has been mentioned as five posts as per guidelines in the enclosure, but no post has been sanctioned by the State Government. Further learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein Annexure-13 the vacancy details of the sanctioned post under DRDA has been mentioned at 81. No. 13 wherein it has been mentioned as five posts as per guidelines in the enclosure, but no post has been sanctioned by the State Government. Finally the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by summarizing his submission has strenuously urged that the petitioner in spite of all his requisite experience and expertise was not given his due promotion to the post of Head Clerk, Accountant since 2003 which has resulted in heartburning and frustration, since stagnation has crept in which has brought debilitating effect on the efficiency and the zeal to work. 4. Controverting averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party nos. 3 wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was initially engaged as a temporary Junior Clerk for a period of 45 days w.e.f 24.07.1989. Subsequently, from time to time, the petitioner was being reengaged as Jr. Clerk for spell of 45 days. On 20.1.1990, the petitioner was again appointed as a Junior Clerk for a period of 44 days. While continuing temporarily as a Jr. Clerk, the petitioner, was engaged as a casual Accounts Clerk for a period of 44 days vide letter no. 16 dated 01.01.1988. The said post was purely temporary for a period of six months only. On 3.12.1990, the petitioner was again engaged as a causal Accounts Clerk for 44 days and was terminated w.e.f. 15.01.1991. Consequent thereto, the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition vide OJC No. 1988 of 1991 for regularization of his service which was disposed of vide order dated 01.03.1994. In obedience of such order dated 01.03.1994 and in accordance with the Government order vide letter no. 9882 dated 27.7.1994, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in DRDA, Balasore in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-115-EB-25-1500% w.e.f. 30.08.1994. The petitioner thereafter joined as a regular Jr. Clerk in DRDA and was discharging his duties in the section dealing with Jawahar Rojana in the Engineering Section of DRDA, Balasore. Thus, the petitioner was never appointed in the post of Accountant. On the other hand, he was appointed as Jr. 950-20-115-EB-25-1500% w.e.f. 30.08.1994. The petitioner thereafter joined as a regular Jr. Clerk in DRDA and was discharging his duties in the section dealing with Jawahar Rojana in the Engineering Section of DRDA, Balasore. Thus, the petitioner was never appointed in the post of Accountant. On the other hand, he was appointed as Jr. Clerk and was assigned with the work in the section of Jawahar Rojagar Yojana and thereafter, in the Engineering Section as per the photocopies of the petitioner's appointment order dated 03.09.1994 and representation dated 12.11.2001. It has been further stated that subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sr. Clerk in the year 2003 when vacancy occurred. It is apposite to mention here that the Government in the Panchayati Raj Department vide letter No. 22229 dated 14.03.1995 created some posts in DRDA, Balasore and such posts were to be manned by experienced persons' who were to be deputed from the Collectorate, Balasore. The purpose behind such deputation was that the Collectorate staffs were more experienced and well acquainted with the rules and regulations to handle the duties attached to such newly created posts in DRDA. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner had filed another writ application before this Hon'ble Court vide W.P.(C) No. 22993 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.01.2012 with a direction to the opposite party no. 1, to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner filed on 11.04.2011 within a period for three months from the date of communication of the order, In obedience to the order dated 30.1.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2011 was duly considered by the State Government, It is worthwhile to mention here that vide petition dated 11.04.2011, the petitioner put forth his claim for consideration of his appointment in the post of Asst. Project Director (Finance) in DRDA on the plea that he has acquired sufficient experience and expertise knowledge in dealing with accounts matters in the DRDA organization. Such representation of the petitioner was duly considered with reference to the concerned record, by the State Government in Panchayati Raj Department. In the process of consideration by the opposite party no. 1, it was revealed that the essential qualifications required for the post of Asst. Such representation of the petitioner was duly considered with reference to the concerned record, by the State Government in Panchayati Raj Department. In the process of consideration by the opposite party no. 1, it was revealed that the essential qualifications required for the post of Asst. Project Director (Finance) are Masters Degree in commerce (specialization in Finance/Accounting/Masters Degree or MBA (Specialization in Finance/Master in Finance Control/ICWA (inter)/Chartered Accountant or 2 years of P.G. Diploma in Financial Management from any recognized university or institution. The Government in the Panchayati Raj Department have prescribed the aforesaid qualifications [or appointment Zposting of Asst. Project Director (Finance) in DRDAs and have decided to make such appointments on contractual basis. On further verification of the record, it was found that the educational qualification of the petitioner is only B.Com., (Hon's). Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioner does not possess the required Qualifications meant for the post of the Asst. Project Director (Finance). Further, as per the said eligibility criteria fixed by the State Government, steps were taken up for appointment of Asst. Project Director (Finance) and engagement order was issued to the selected candidate who joined in the said post on 20.05.2013." Another affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 3 on 07.01.2016 wherein it has been mentioned that initially the petitioner was engaged as Junior Clerk on casual basis and subsequently he was retrenched from the job with effect from 15.01.1991 because of closure of the scheme. Further as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 01.03.1994 in OJC No. 1988 of 1991 and letter no. 9882 dated 27.07.1994 of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department, Odisha, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in DRDA, Balasore on 30.08.1994 in the time scale of pay Rs. 950-20-11S-EB-25 after two years of retrenchment and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Sr. Clerk not accountant during 2003 when vacancy occurred and worked on different section. The post of Accountant in DRDA Balasore does not exist. The accounts matter is dealt by the ministerial staff (Sr. Clerks/Jr. Clerks). It is also revealed from the Orissa DRDA Employee Service Regulations communicated by the Government vide letter no. 9179 dated 03.10.1998 that the Sr. Clerk may be promoted to the post of Head Clerk after seven years experience in the post of Sr. The accounts matter is dealt by the ministerial staff (Sr. Clerks/Jr. Clerks). It is also revealed from the Orissa DRDA Employee Service Regulations communicated by the Government vide letter no. 9179 dated 03.10.1998 that the Sr. Clerk may be promoted to the post of Head Clerk after seven years experience in the post of Sr. Clerk/Accountant and passed final Accounts Examination but not to the post of Accounts Officer/APD (Finance). The petitioner may claim promotion for the post of Head Clerk when vacancy arises. Further ORSP Rules, 1998 envisages the RACPS after completing 15 years of service in entry grade where there are not promotional avenues. Hence, the claim maid by the petitioner in not tenable. Further the Government have introduced RACPS to get the financial benefit after completing 10, 20 and 30 years of service in case he does not get the promotion to the next higher post of Head Clerk not APD (Finance) as claimed by the petitioner. Further the post of APD Finance Government instructed to recruit the officers having qualification of Master Degree in Commerce (Specialization in Finance)/Master Degree or MBA (Specialization in Finance) Master in Finance Control/ICWA (Inter)/Chartered Accountant or two years of P.G. Diploma in Financial' Management on contractual basis with the remuneration of Rs. 15,000/- per month. But the petitioner is a regular Sr. Clerk having the qualification of B. Com and he does not possess the qualification for the post of APD Finance. Further, the petitioner had earlier taken the shelter of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 22993/2011 in which the petitioner sought for the direction of the Hon'ble High Court for consider his promotion to the post of APD Finance and Hon'ble High Court directed the Government to examine and consider this case. Govt. accordingly examined his case and rejected the representation for considering the appointment because he does not possess required qualifications meant for the post of APD Finance and communicated the same to the petitioner vide Memo No. 10863 dated 22.6.2012. 5. Mr. Govt. accordingly examined his case and rejected the representation for considering the appointment because he does not possess required qualifications meant for the post of APD Finance and communicated the same to the petitioner vide Memo No. 10863 dated 22.6.2012. 5. Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit has vociferously submitted that so far as the post of APD Finance is concerned, the petitioner does not have the qualification and so far as promotion to the post of Head Clerk is concerned, though the petitioner has got the requisite experience, but his case for promotion to the post of Head Clerk shall be considered as and when vacancy arises. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rivalised submission and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's case deserves consideration by the opposite parties for promotion to the post of either to the Head Clerk or to the post of Accountant due to the following reasons and judicial pronouncements. (i) The undisputed facts as borne out from the records reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and joined as on 24.07.1989. After few months, the petitioner was assigned as Accounts Clerk. The petitioner has passed both the preliminary as well as the final accounts examination conducted by the Board of Revenue during 1995 as per the norms prescribed by the State Government. During his service career, the petitioner has acquired experience and expertise and has undergone a number of accounts training of DRDA Accounts Procedure. (ii) As per the guidelines on DRDA Administration of the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, 1999 under Annexure-1 under the heading of the Accounts Wing it has been mentioned that the accounts wing of the DRDA should be headed by a Senior Accounts Officer, either on deputation or by engaging the services of a Chartered Accountant. He should be supported by an Accounts Officer each for self employment prorgrammes and wage employment programmes duly assisted by accountants and apart from that the additional post of Accounts Officer be sanctioned for Indira Awas Yojana and one Accountant at the district level should be available to monitor the progress of the programme and the accounts. He should be supported by an Accounts Officer each for self employment prorgrammes and wage employment programmes duly assisted by accountants and apart from that the additional post of Accounts Officer be sanctioned for Indira Awas Yojana and one Accountant at the district level should be available to monitor the progress of the programme and the accounts. (iii) Though the petitioner was eligible to be considered on promotion, but his case for promotion was ignored ill the DPC held on 29.03.2000, but subsequently, in 2003 he was adjusted as Senior Clerk. Though nomenclatured as Senior Clerk for all practical purposes, the petitioner was assigned the duties of Accounts Section and the services of the petitioner was utilized to avoid dislocation in the accounts matter and for smooth management of DRDA. The staffing pattern of the DRDAs as prescribed by the Government of India has not been implemented by the Government of Orissa and the DRDA employees service regulation has not been modified accordingly which has adversely affected the promotion prospect of the petitioner. (iv) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others ( AIR 1988 SC 1033 ) and State of Tripura and others v. K.K. Roy, 2004 AIR(SCW) 1 have illuminatively dealt with the issue for creating avenues for promotion. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra) held as follows: "4. .........Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. 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. We would therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case, the State of Bihar fails to comply, with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation.' (v) In the case of State of Tripura and others (supra), it has been held as follows: "4. Indisputably, the post of Law Officer-cum-Draftsman is a single cadre post. It is also undisputed that there does not exist any promotional avenue therefore. The respondent is holder of a Master Degree as also a Degree in law. He was appointed in the year 1982. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted, the respondent would be left without being promoted throughout his career. In almost an identical situation, a Bench of this Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K.G.S. Bhatt and another, (1989) 4 SCC 635 ) held: "..........It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation, public or private does not 'hire an hand' but engages or employs 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 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 Edn., P. 246). Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. The organization 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, manpower development, management development etc., which is not related to a system of promotions.... " (vi) The matter came up for consideration again in Dr. Ms. D.Z. Hussain v. Union of India, (1990 (Supp) SCC 688) wherein this Court in no uncertain terms laid down the law stating: ".........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. 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 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 estoppels 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. 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. We are, thus, of the opinion that the respondent herein is at least entitled to grant of two higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of his joining of the service and the other upon expiry of 24 year thereof." 7. On the cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Clerk as soon as vacancy arises and necessary orders to be passed for grant of (ORSP 1998) and (ORSP 2008) and further the opposite parties are also directed in case, due to non-availability of vacancy of Head Clerk, the case of the petitioner is not considered for promotion to the post Head Clerk, his case for promotion of Accounts Officer be considered, keeping in view his qualification vis-a-vis other eligible candidates, if there is no legal impediment, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 8. With the aforesaid observational direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.