Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. S. K. Borkataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Gogoi, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Upper Divisional Assistant (UDA).

3. Case of the petitioner is that in the year 1980, he was appointed as Extra Writer in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Kamrup at Guwahati. After working as such for more than six years, petitioner was appointed as Copyist and posted in the Office of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Rangia. Since then, petitioner is working as Copyist, presently in the Office of respondent No. 5 i.e. Circle Officer, Rangia Revenue Circle, Rangia.

4. Claiming equal pay with the Typist, petitioner along with a large number of persons serving as Copyist in different establishments of the State had approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 444/1987. After due consideration, this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 12.04.1988 by directing that the Copyists should be provided the time scale of pay as given to the Typists.

5. While the grievance of the petitioner regarding pay scale commensurate to the status of his service was met at the intervention of this Court, he continued to remain stagnated in the same post though long years had passed in the meanwhile. During this period, service of the petitioner was utilized in different establishments, sometimes as In-charge Lower Division Assistant (LDA) but no promotion was given to him. According to the petitioner, at the time of filing of the writ petition he had rendered about 23 years of service in the same post of Copyist without any promotion.

6. With the above grievance, present writ petition has been filed.

7. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati has filed a counter affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that petitioner is serving as Copyist only and not as LDA. Though representation was submitted by the petitioner seeking his promotion to the post of UDA, the same could not be entertained as there was no provision for promotion of Copyist to the post of UDA. It is further stated that some LDAs have been promoted to the post of UDA as per Rule 5 of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 but promotion from Copyist to UDA is not permissible under the said Rules. Cadres of Copyist and UDA (now re-designated as Senior Assistant) are different.

8. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit as well as an additional affidavit. Petitioner has placed on record various orders issued to him from time to time asking him to discharge duties of LDA in the Office of respondent No. 5. It is stated that the provisions of Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 would not be applicable to the service of the petitioner as the cadre of Copyist is not covered by the said Rules. The judgment and order dated 12.04.1988 in Civil Rule No. 444/2007 has also been placed on record.

9. Mr. Borkataki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has suffered for long due to stagnation in his service career. He has been asked by the authorities to discharge duties of LDA (Junior Assistant) from time to time without providing him the benefit of promotion to the said post. In this way 29 long years have gone by in the post of Copyist without any consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion. Referring to the judgment of this Court dated 12.04.1988 he submits that the spirit of the said judgment should be followed and due justice should be given to the Copyists by providing adequate promotional avenues. He submits that this case is pending in this Court for 6 years and during this period of 6 years, no steps have been taken for promotion of the petitioner. Mr. Borkataki, further refers to the provisions of Assam District Copyist Establishment Service Rules, 1991 and contends that the said Rule is still at the