JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition is filed for quashing of the order at Annexure-9, for issuing a mandamus against the opposite parties to consider the grievance of the petitioner for promotion at least to the post of Junior Manager (HR) and also to direct the opposite parties to provide promotional avenue for the petitioner keeping in view his qualification and long service of 27 years in one post. 2. Short background involving the case is that petitioner joined as a Telecom Operator in High Skilled 'B' Category under Administration and Clerical Classification on 12.08.1981 in the erstwhile Office of Orissa State Electricity Board (in short 'OSEB'). OSEB was subsequently taken over by GRIDCO. Subsequently, the establishment of GRIDCO is also taken over by the Orissa Power Transmission Company Limited (in short 'OPTCL'), which is in charge of power transmission policy. Petitioner is continuing as an employee under opposite party no.1 presently. Petitioner passed M.A. in Public Administration with special paper as HRM from Utkal University. He obtained his Diploma in Electrical Engineering from Oxford College, Kolkata. GRIDCO while existing issued a circular vide Circular No.11031, dated 21.5.2002 inviting applications from departmental candidates for the post of Assistant Manager (HRD)/ Assistant Manager (IT)/Assistant Manager (FIN) and qualifications for various disciplines were discussed in the said Circular. For the post of Assistant Manager (HRD), a candidate should possess Post Graduate in any subject or Graduate in Engineering or MBA/PGDBM (of minimum two years duration) from any recognized Institution/University with experience in Establishment, Service Matters, Policies, Industrial Relations, Domestic Enquiries, Welfare and Labour Law etc. It was also decided therein to open the post to the internal candidates in relaxation of age and qualification. In the year 2005, some posts of Assistant Manager/Junior Manager have fallen vacant in different establishment of the GRIDCO, such as, HRD, PR Guest House Management and Junior Manager (HR)/Service Tech. SLDC. Petitioner since got due qualifications for the higher post like Assistant Manager, he had applied to the opposite party no.1 and his application was duly forwarded by the opposite party no.3. However, authority remained silent. Petitioner also applied the authority for considering his case to the post of Junior Manager (HRD) on 22.03.2006. SLDC. Petitioner since got due qualifications for the higher post like Assistant Manager, he had applied to the opposite party no.1 and his application was duly forwarded by the opposite party no.3. However, authority remained silent. Petitioner also applied the authority for considering his case to the post of Junior Manager (HRD) on 22.03.2006. However, opposite party no.3 vide his letter dated 03.06.2006 advised the petitioner to apply to the Director (HRD) along with his HSC certificate and other higher educational qualification certificates for appropriate consideration. In the meanwhile, opposite party no.3 given promotion to one Subodh Chandra Mishra, who of course retired in the meantime. Petitioner submitted another representation on 14.08.2006, wherein he has stated that opposite party no.3 given promotion to Subodh Chandra Mishra to the post of Section Officer, which is a post in E-2 category. It was also submitted therein that one post of Grade-1 Assistant has fallen vacant after promotion of Sri S.C. Mishra to the post of Section Officer and thus, requesting for considering his case for the said post or at least to re-designate the post as Grade-1 Assistant. Simultaneously, he also prayed for promotion to the post of Junior Manager (HRD). Lastly on 20.9.2006, petitioner also represented to opposite party no.2 with copies to opposite party nos.1 and 3 to consider his case for Grade-1 Assistant or Junior Manager (HRD). It was also alleged that in spite of repeated request, petitioner's case has not been considered and on the other hand, there has been appointment of several Assistants in the post of Assistant Manager. Even the petitioner was not provided opportunity to compete along with others. Finding repeated requests of the petitioner even unheard, petitioner was constrained to take shelter of this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1475/ 2007. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing therein that the petitioner to pursue the representation pending before the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 was also thereby directed to dispose of the said representation within a period of two months. It is pursuant to such direction of this High Court, the opposite party no.2 though considered the representation but while rejecting the representation claimed that since the petitioner was holding the post of Telecommunication Operator his promotion to the post of Junior Manager (HRD) was not permissible. It is pursuant to such direction of this High Court, the opposite party no.2 though considered the representation but while rejecting the representation claimed that since the petitioner was holding the post of Telecommunication Operator his promotion to the post of Junior Manager (HRD) was not permissible. Petitioner also averred that General Manager vide Office Order No.1487, dated 30.04.2001 addressed to opposite party no.2 has recommended and requested either for higher scale or for creation of higher post to the Telecommunication Operator, but however, the authority remained silent. In the meantime, GRIDCO vide Office Order No.12772(5), dated 18.06.2002 circulated the revised GRIDCO structure with field staff norms under implementation plan pertaining to the field office unit, which is relevant for the petitioner as he was also serving in the field unit. In the revised GRIDCO structure, the posts of Section Officer and Telecom Operator are absent. Assailing the rejection order at Annexure-9, petitioner made the prayer as quoted hereinabove in filing the present writ petition. 3. Sri Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on reiteration of the above facts while justifying the claim of the petitioner contended that a person cannot be appointed in a post and retired in such post after serving for more than three decades and further for the petitioner having sufficient qualifications to hold the higher post, further for the recommendation of the competent authority to either step up the salary of the Telecom Operator or to create promotional post, case of the petitioner should have been considered. It is thus submitted that the rejection of the request of the petitioner is not only opposed to the legitimate expectation of an employee to have minimum stepping up pay by way of promotion in his service career but also involving an inhuman attitude by an employer to its employee. Referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Tripura and others Vrs. K.K.Roy, (2004) AIR SC 1249 and the direction therein Sri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify the petitioner's claim. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand taking this Court to the counter averments submitted that petitioner since joined knowing fully well that in the post of Telecommunication Operator not only belong to a different cadre, but has also no promotional line. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand taking this Court to the counter averments submitted that petitioner since joined knowing fully well that in the post of Telecommunication Operator not only belong to a different cadre, but has also no promotional line. While admitting that petitioner has made several requests, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that for the post held by the petitioner has no promotional line, each time the case of the petitioner though was considered but the authority was constrained to reject the case of the petitioner for having no scope for giving promotion to the petitioner, keeping in view the service regulation involving the establishment. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the opposite parties referring to Annexures-G and H that the promotion to the post indicated therein does not have the scope to consider the case of the petitioner, since he was holding the post of Telecom Operator. It is in the circumstances and for the reasons submitted in the counter affidavit and for some financial benefits given to the petitioner, further for abolition of the post of Telecommunication Operator since the petitioner has been assigned with work of corporate relations, estate and other administrative activities of SLDC, counsel for the opposite parties seriously objected the claim of the petitioner and prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that there is no dispute that petitioner remained all through since 1981 in the post of Telecommunication Operator except in the year 2018 on abolition of post of Telecommunication Operator, the petitioner has been assigned with the work of Corporate Relation, Estate and other Administrative activities of SLDC, as appearing at Annexure-17 involving further affidavit in response to the rejoinder at the instance of the opposite parties. The post, the petitioner is presently holding has also no promotional avenue. For no controversy to the claim of the petitioner that petitioner was continuing in the same post till 2018 when there was only change in the nomenclature of the post, this Court finds petitioner who had joined in the post of Telecommunication Operator appears to be retiring without having any promotional avenue except change in the designation involving the post again having no promotional avenue. There may be some financial benefit here and there. There may be some financial benefit here and there. It is at this stage taking into consideration the law of the land in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another Vrs. K. G. S. Bhatt and another, (1989) 4 SCC 635 , the Hon'ble Apex Court therein held as follows: " .It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation, public or private does not hire a hand' but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organization 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 organization. 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 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, manpower development, management development, etc., which is not related to a system of promotions ". Similarly in the case of Dr.Ms. O. Z. Hussain Vrs. Union of India, (1990) Supp1 SCC 688 , the Hon'ble Apex Court again held as follows: " .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 of6 the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers .." 6. Taking into consideration the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited Supreme Court decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of State of Tripura and others (supra) in Paragraphs 6 and 7 came to hold as follows: "6. Taking into consideration the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited Supreme Court decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of State of Tripura and others (supra) in Paragraphs 6 and 7 came to hold as follows: "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 the4 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. 7. 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 years thereof." 7. 7. 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 years thereof." 7. Keeping in view the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that a person is joining in a post and retiring in the said post, such action being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, keeping in view the directions therein in paragraph-7 of the State of Tripura and others (supra), this Court while setting aside the impugned order vide Annexure-9 directs the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court therein in paragraph-7. Considering that the petitioner has already put up several decades of service and he is entitled to promotion at least upto two stages he may be provided with consequential financial benefits along with arrear with interest @6% all through. The entire exercise in the light of the above be completed by the opposite party no.1 within a period of one and half months from the date of communication of the judgment. Writ petition succeeds but however to the extent indicated hereinabove. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.