5. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, while refuting submissions made on behalf of the respondent-State, that promotion from the post of Mason Grade II to Mason Grade I, is a promotion, vehemently argued that no such promotion was ever made, rather, on account of bifurcation of Cadre, merely designation of Mason Grade I was conferred upon the appellant, that too, without there being any financial benefits. Mr. Bhushan further contended that the appellant, who had been performing same and similar duties since 1979, without there being any change, was not provided with any promotion, as such, finding returned by learned Single Judge to the effect that appellant has availed promotional avenues, is totally contrary to the record. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge, failed to take note of the fact that since appellant was appointed as Work Charge Mason, next promotional channel was to the post of Work Mistry, which was later on redesignated as Road Inspector/Supervisor. Had the R&P Rules been amended, appellant would have been promoted to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer, before 2000. But, aforesaid submission having been made by the learned counsel representing the appellant, appears to be ill-founded, because, there is nothing on record, suggestive of the fact that, after abolition of the post of Work Mistry, appellant could be promoted to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer, rather, this Court, after having carefully perused Annexure R-5, i.e. Recruitment and
