Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. After hearing Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, I am of the opinion that the sole question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioners can invoke the principles of legitimate expectation to claim the relief. The controversy arose on the following facts and circumstances. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of All Assam Heads of Department Ministerial Officers, while the petitioner No. 2 is the President of the Association. The remaining petitioners are members of the Association and they, having a common grievance, are joining together to file this writ petition. In the early part of 1960, the Government of Assam introduced a scheme for training Assistants drawn from various Heads of Departments, District and Subordinate Offices for training in Accounts. This scheme was revised in the year 1965 whereunder the trainees on completion of the training ware entitled to the following:

"(i) With credit (75% and above) - 2 (two) advance increments and a cash reward of Rs. 100/-;

(ii) Grade-I (60% and above but less than 75%) - 2 (two) advance increments.

(iii) Grade-II (45% and above but less than 60% - 1 (one) advance increment"

2. The scheme was amended by the State Government from time to time, but the grant of advance increments was continued with a rider that the benefit of advance increments shall not be admissible in cases where passing of the Account training was made a condition precedent for holding the post which the incumbent has been allowed to hold. It would appear that the Director of Accounts and Treasuries has till now conducted training for 16(sixteen) batches of Assistants from Heads of Department and 26 batches of Treasury Assistants. In the year 1998, the Finance Department of the Government of Assam wanted to review the continuance of the scheme of advance increment and opined, inter alia, that such short tern training does not result in perfection of Accounts works in the offices and doubted the usefulness of such training. After several exchange of correspondences between the Finance Department and the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, the practice was stopped by the Government vide the letter dated 14.6.2000 of the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Estt. (A) Department (Annexure-VIII). As a result, the 14th batch of the trainees from the Heads of Departments, District and Subordinate Offices were not given the advance increments. However, after considerable delay, this 14th batch of trainees were given the benefits vide the letter dated 1.4.2004 of the Under Secretary, Finance Estt. (B) Department, Govt. of Assam. However, the trainees belonging to the 15th and 16th batches, which include the petitioners herein, were denied of the advance increments, which were resented by them. This prompted the petitioners to file this writ petition for directing the respondent authorities to award the advance increments.

3. A short affidavit is filed by the Department of Public Health Engineering (PHED) through the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, PHED wherein it is stated that the petitioner No. 20 (Shri Kumud Ch. Pathak) is serving as U.D. Assistant under the establishment of the Chief Engineer, PHED, Henggrabari, and is drawing a special pay of ` 100/- along with his salary after passing the departmental Accounts training in Grade-I as the trainee of the 15th batch. Curiously, no further comment is made by the answering respondent. Is he contesting the writ petition? I do not know. The affidavit filed by the Finance Department is equally short and does not seem raise objection against the prayer made in the writ petition. The case of the Finance Department is that as per the provision of Rule 15 of the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973, every L.D.A. (Jr. Assistant) and U.D.A. (Sr. Asstt) sh