JUDGMENT : S.K. Mohanty, J. - Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally reverted from the post of Accountant to that of a Junior Assistant. 2. By Annexure-1 dated December 31, 1984 the petitioner was appointed as Accountant in Utkalika, New Delhi, a Sales Depot of the Orissa State Co-operative Handicraft Corporation (a Government of Orissa Undertaking) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 850/- per month. By Annexure-3 dated June 25, 1986 he was transferred and posted as Junior Assistant in the Head Office of the Corporation at Bhubaneswar and in his place opposite party No. 3 was appointed as Accountant with effect from July 1, 1986. The petitioner submits that opposite party No. 3 is both less qualified and junior and the order of transfer of the petitioner amounted to degradation from higher rank to lower rank. He, therefore, made several representations against the order of transfer, but to no effect. He prays that Annexure-3 may be quashed and he may be appointed as Accountant. 3. The Corporation in its counter contends that the salary of the petitioner was fixed at a consolidated sum of Rs. 850/- in the appointment order itself taking into account the D.A., A.DA., H.R.A. and C.C.A. etc. admissible at New Delhi. At the time of transfer to the Head Office he was given the scale of Rs. 255-360/-as against the consolidated salary of Rs. 850/-and if the D.A., A.D.A., H.R.A. and C.C.A., etc. are added to the basic pay in the above scale, the total emolument was more than the consolidated salary. In other words, it is stated that the pay which a Junior Assistant would have been entitled if posted at New Delhi at the time the petitioner was posted, would have been more than the consolidated salary of Rs. 850/- which the petitioner was getting. In these circumstances it is contended that Annexure-3 is neither an order of reversion nor degradation nor fresh appointment. With regard to opposite party No. 3 it is stated that he joined service on May 16, 1977 and his appointment to the post of Accountant was on the basis of experience and suitability. Lastly it is stated that the order of transfer under Annexure-3 was in keeping with administrative exigency and as it did not amount to reduction in rank, the writ application is liable to be rejected. 4. Lastly it is stated that the order of transfer under Annexure-3 was in keeping with administrative exigency and as it did not amount to reduction in rank, the writ application is liable to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned order Annexure-3 mainly on two grounds. Firstly he contended that as per the appointment order the petitioner was on probation for one year from the date of joining and since after completion of one year he was allowed to continue in service, he shall be deemed to have been made permanent as Accountant. Secondly, it was contended that the post of Accountant was superior to that of Junior Assistant and consequently the order of transfer as Junior Assistant in the Head Office at Bhubaneswar amounted to reduction in rank. The correctness of both these grounds is denied by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 5. At this stage it would be profitable to extract the relevant portion of the appointment order under Annexure-1: "Shri Gobardhan Padhi on outsider is appointed as Accountant for Utkalika, New Delhi on a consolidated salary of Rs. 850/-(Rupees eight hundred fifty) p.m. The appointment is purely temporary and is terminable at any time without assigning any reason therefore on issue of one month's notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu thereof. He will be on probation for one year from the date of joining. Further continuance in service shall be considered on the basis of his performance during the probationary period." 6. It is stated in the counter, that the Corporation has its own rules relating to service conditions of its employees and Government Rules are not at all applicable to Corporation employees. In the rejoinder the petitioner denies that the Corporation has any rules. It is added that the rules of Government of Orissa are adopted and same scale of pay is given to the Corporation employees. In course of hearing, xerox copy of Standing Order No. 1 dated May 27, 1987 issued by the Corporation was produced. It reveals that thereunder for the first time some conditions of service were prescribed. Thus, it is quite clear that at the time of appointment and transfer of the petitioner no rule relating to conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation, at all existed. It reveals that thereunder for the first time some conditions of service were prescribed. Thus, it is quite clear that at the time of appointment and transfer of the petitioner no rule relating to conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation, at all existed. No material has been brought on record to indicate that the State Government rules have been adopted by the Corporation. Merely because the Corporation employees are given the same scale of pay as State Government employees no inference can be drawn therefrom that in fact State Government rules apply to the Corporation employees with regard to their service conditions. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner joined service as Accountant in Utkalika on January 14, 1985. Therefore, he had completed more than one year of service from the date of joining, by the date of the impugned order of transfer. Since there did not exist any codified Rule to govern the service conditions of the Corporation employees the offer of appointment is to be scrutinised for a finding if after completion of one year, the service of the petitioner became permanent. In my view, this has to be answered against the petitioner. The stipulation in the order of appointment that further continuance (beyond one year) in service shall be considered on the basis of the petitioner's performance during the probationary period would imply that the appointing authority is to pass a fresh order allowing the petitioner to continue further in case his performance during his probationary period was found satisfactory. Therefore, until such fresh order is made, the petitioner cannot on the terms of his appointment be deemed to have automatically become permanent on the expiration of the probationary period of one year. For taking this view I rely on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M. Verghese Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others. In the case at hand admittedly no such fresh order has been issued. Therefore, the argument that the service of the petitioner became permanent after completion of one year of probationary period is without any substance. Consequently, the first ground of attack fails. 8. Now we may examine the second ground of attack. It is stated by the petitioner in his additional affidavit filed on February 19, 1991, that the post of Accountant is a higher promotional post for Junior Assistant. Consequently, the first ground of attack fails. 8. Now we may examine the second ground of attack. It is stated by the petitioner in his additional affidavit filed on February 19, 1991, that the post of Accountant is a higher promotional post for Junior Assistant. He, however, asserts that he was directly recruited in this promotional post by process of selection and consequently he could not be reverted to the lower post of Junior Assistant. To substantiate his argument he relies on Office Order dated October 26, 1987 (Annexure-9) issued by the Corporation, indicating the existing scale of pay and scale to be revised with effect from January 1, 1985 in respect of different categories of posts existing under the Corporation. Annexure-9 shows that it is an amendment of an earlier order dated August 11, 1987. Copy of the earlier order had not been furnished by either party. As it seems, the amendment was with regard to the revised scale mentioned on the right-hand side and the existing posts and existing scales of pay mentioned on the left hand side of Annexure-9 are the same as in the earlier order. In Annexure-9 the posts have been divided into seven groups. The posts of L.D. Clerk and Accounts Assistant come under Group 'C' and their existing scale of pay has been shown as Rs. 255-360/-. In Group 'E' there are two posts, one post carrying the designation Accountant (simpliciter) with a fixed pay of Rs. 800/- and the other post is Accountant, New Delhi in the existing scale of Rs. 320-450/-. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner from the above fact that the post of L.D. Clerk carrying the scale of Rs. 255-360/-being inferior to the post of Accountant, New Delhi, carrying the scale of Rs. 320-450/- the petitioner could not be reverted from the post of Accountant, New Delhi to the post of L.D. Clerk. It is not disputed that the post of L.D. Clerk is the same as the post of Junior Assistant. One thing is certain from Annexure-9 that there existed a post of Accountant, New Delhi (obviously in respect of Utkalika) carrying a scale of pay higher than the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant. It would thus appear that the petitioner was appointed against this post, but not in the scale the post carried. One thing is certain from Annexure-9 that there existed a post of Accountant, New Delhi (obviously in respect of Utkalika) carrying a scale of pay higher than the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant. It would thus appear that the petitioner was appointed against this post, but not in the scale the post carried. Instead, being an outsider he was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 850/- per month. Now, therefore, if the petitioner is able to show that the initial basic salary of Accountant, New Delhi in the scale Rs. 320-450/- plus allowances attached to that post is Rs. 350/- or less than that, then the petitioner would be justified in asserting that the post he held at New Delhi was superior to that of a Junior Assistant. Unfortunately he has not produced any material to arrive at a finding on this point in his favour. In course of hearing the learned counsel for the Corporation submitted a statement signed by the Managing Director of the Corporation indicating the total emoluments of a regular employee of the Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs. 255-360/- posted at New Delhi on January 1, 1985 on the initial pay of Rs. 255/-. This shows that the total emolument of the employee posted at New Delhi on January 1, 1985 in the above scale was Rs. 900.45 paise. The correctness of this statement was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This being the position, the argument from the side of the petitioner that he held a post superior to that of a Junior Assistant falls to the ground. It is apparent that there existed a post of Accountant in Utkalika carrying a scale of pay higher than that of a Junior Assistant. But merely because the petitioner was appointed as Accountant, Utkalika he cannot claim the scale of pay attached to that post as his right is to be worked out from the order of appointment issued to him. The order of appointment fixed the salary at a consolidated sum of Rs. 850/-, whereas the emolument of a regular Junior Assistant of the Corporation posted at New Delhi on January 1, 1985 was Rs. 900.45 paise at the minimum. Therefore there does not appear any doubt that the post in which the petitioner was appointed was even inferior to that of a Junior Assistant. 850/-, whereas the emolument of a regular Junior Assistant of the Corporation posted at New Delhi on January 1, 1985 was Rs. 900.45 paise at the minimum. Therefore there does not appear any doubt that the post in which the petitioner was appointed was even inferior to that of a Junior Assistant. Consequently the case of the petitioner is not one where he was initially appointed to a higher post and has been transferred to a lower post. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in the case of Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein it is stated that a direct recruit to a post cannot be reverted to a lower post. This decision can be of no avail to the petitioner in view of the finding that the post of Junior Assistant to which the petitioner was transferred was not lower than the post of Accountant in which he was appointed as per the appointment order. 9. The writ application is also bound to fail on the ground of laches. Although the transfer order is dated June 25, 1986 the petitioner approached this Court in writ jurisdiction on March 20, 1989 that is, after about two years nine months. Of course, he has taken the stand that right since September 4, 1986 till January 20, 1989 he had made as many as then (ten) representations. It is not his case that in reply to his representations he was ever held out any hope to justify the delay in moving this Court. It had been held in the case of Amrit Lal Berry and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, that merely by filing repeated or delayed representations, a petitioner cannot get over the obstacles, which delay in approaching the court creates because equitable rights of others have arisen. Therefore in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it has been held that an aggrieved person should approach the court at least within six months or at the most of a year of promotion of his juniors. In the instant case, the delay of two years nine months is held to be unjustified. 10. In the result, the writ application is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs. P.C. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed