Judgment Aftab Alam, J. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who appears to have had a long and unhappy relationship with his employers, the National Insurance Company Limited (respondent no. 1) a subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India (respondent no. 2) questions his categorisation as Assistant Administrative Officer (Development) and not as Administrative Officer. Alternatively it is claimed that even assuming his categorisation as Assistant Administrative Officer to be valid and justified, he should have been given promotion to the post of Administrative Officer from 1.4.1976 when persons junior to him were promoted to that post. The writ petition is actually a long narration of alleged harassment as suffered by the petitioner at the hands of his employees and his grievances against them. The grievances include his incorrect categorisation to an inferior post, his transfers, denial of a number of perquisites to him by shifting him from the development to the administrative side of the office and withholding some of his annual increments etc. I am, however, not required to separately examine each of the aforesaid grievances which are presented in the writ petition in a rather jumbled up manner. This is for the reason that at the time of the hearing of the case, Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner picked up for pressing before the Court only the grievance relating to his categorisation/promotion. He accordingly sought the following relief’s : (i) a declaration that the petitioner's initial categorisation (in 1976) as Assistant Administrative Officer was bad and illegal and a direction to assign him, from the date of the initial categorisation, the post of Administrative Officer with all consequential benefits. (ii) alternatively, a direction to give him promotion to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 1.4.1976 when persons junior to the petitioner were given promotion to the said post. The necessary facts to be taken into account in order to appreciate the parties' contention are as follows ; 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in 1966 in Ruby Insurance Company Limited which was then a private company. On 1.6.1967 the petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager of the Company's branch at Giridih when it was still a private company. The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in 1966 in Ruby Insurance Company Limited which was then a private company. On 1.6.1967 the petitioner was posted as the Branch Manager of the Company's branch at Giridih when it was still a private company. With the coming of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (Act 57 of 1972), the petitioner became as employee of General Insurance Corporation of India with effect from 1.1.1973. After the nationalisation of the General Insurance business, there was a process of integration and merger of different Insurance Companies hitherto in private hands. This also involved the categorisation of the employees working in the different companies taken over by the Nationalisation Act. It appears that for that purpose a Committee was constituted which was required to screen and consider the bio-data of officers holding managerial posts in the different companies. The petitioner was also required to submit his bio-data which he duty submitted through proper channel. Thereafter by a communication dated 29.11.1975, under the hand of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the National Insurance Company Ltd., the petitioner was informed that he had been provisionally selected for appointment in the rank of Assistant Administrative Officer for development duties and he was appointed in the Company in that rank with immediate effect. A photo copy of this communication has been enclosed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This Photostat copy of the letter bears the endorsement made by the petitioner in the following words: "I accept the contents mentioned above in your letter dated 29.11.1975." It is, thus clear that the petitioner accepted his categorisation and appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer by letter dated 29.11.1975 without any objection of protest. 3. Two years later, however, the petitioner made representation for recategorisation as Administrative Officer before the Appellate Committee for categorisation of junior officers/Assistant Administrative officers/Administrative officers. It is stated in the writ petition that his representation was turned down by the Appellate Committee but no order or communication from that committee has been enclosed with the writ petition. 4. Then the petitioner appears to have run into trouble with his employers over matters of his transfer, his shifting from the development side to the administrative side of the office and similar other day to day matters pertaining to his employment. 4. Then the petitioner appears to have run into trouble with his employers over matters of his transfer, his shifting from the development side to the administrative side of the office and similar other day to day matters pertaining to his employment. It further appears that some departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and he was awarded some punishments as a result thereof. From time to time he made representations to his superiors on one grievance or the other and he came to this Court too on more than one occasion. This Court also declined to entertain his grievances and he was directed to make representations before the departmental authorities. One such representation, dated 14.6.1965 was disposed of by order dated 31.10.1986 issued under the hand of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (on deputation), National Insurance Company Limited. A copy of this order has been enclosed as Annexure 19 to the writ petition. This order considered the various grievances of the petitioner in detail and turned down each one of them. As regards the question of his categorisation, with which alone I am concerned in this writ petition, the matter was dealt with in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order which are extracted herein-below: "1. That your categorization in the cadre of A.A.O. of the General Insurance Industries was made in terms of General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1975 taking into consideration your designation powers, functions nature of job and pay scales etc. including the size of the organization (ex-Unit M/s. Ruby General Insurance Company Limited) as on 1st December, 1972 when your bio-data submitted by you was also examined. Your statement that at the relevant time you had been posted at Giridih as In-Charge of the Branch is also matter of record, but that does not give you any additional strength for your categorization in the higher cadre/post. The development functions were also assigned to you as a matter of discretion of the management and not by way of your right. At the time of categorization your substantive cadre or post was A.A.O. which is in terms of the sad Rationalisation Scheme, 1975. The management had its discretion to assign development function; to any Officer and to withdraw the same at any time to assign any other functions to any officer at any time. At the time of categorization your substantive cadre or post was A.A.O. which is in terms of the sad Rationalisation Scheme, 1975. The management had its discretion to assign development function; to any Officer and to withdraw the same at any time to assign any other functions to any officer at any time. Accordingly the development functions were assigned to you as thought fit by the management and were withdrawn by the management at the appropriate time. On withdrawal of the development functions you have been assigned with the administrative functions but your substantive post/cadre is not changed. 2. In the matter of the your appeal for re-categorization to the cadre of Administrative Officer the appropriate Appeal Committee was empowered and authorised to deal with and to disposed of the same as your pay scale nature of job, functions, powers, length of service and size of the organisation (ex-Unit M/s. Ruby General Insurance Company Limited) as on 31st December, 1972 in which you had been working before nationalisation and accordingly your appeal for recategorization to the cadre of Administrative Officer was rightly and properly disposed of and in terms of the Rationalisation Scheme, 1975. We cannot reopen of any case/appeal of recategorisation against the decision of the said Appeal Committee in the matter of your appeal for recategorization. We have nothing to do because of the statutory provisions of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 as amended up to date and General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1975. Moreover the question regarding recategorisation has been barred by limitation as per statutory provisions." 5. Apparently after this order the petitioner once again moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1421/1986 (R). By order dated 25.9.1987 this writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn in view of the statement made in one of the letters enclosed with the writ petition to the effect that the name of the petitioner will be placed before the Promotion Committee in the following year for selection to the higher cadre. After that there is a communication dated 3.11.1987, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 23 to this writ petition which disposed of the petitioner's representation dated 14.8.1987 and in substance reiterared the respondents stand on the petitioner's grievances. After that there is a communication dated 3.11.1987, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 23 to this writ petition which disposed of the petitioner's representation dated 14.8.1987 and in substance reiterared the respondents stand on the petitioner's grievances. Finally, by letter dated 23.2.1988 issued by the General Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, the petitioner was informed that he was appointed as an Administrative Officer. The petitioner's appointment as Administrative Officer was to be effective from the date he took charge of the post and the letter bears his endorsement to shall that the petitioner accepted this promotion under protest. 6. After the issuance of this order, the petitioner once again came to this Court in the present writ application. Now, Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the communication as contained in Annexures 19, 23 and 25. Annexures 19 and 23 are challenged as they justify the petitioner's initial categorisation (in 1975) as Assistant Administrative Officer and Annexure 25 is impugned in so far it accord') promotion to the petitioner to the post of Administrative Officer only in the year, 1988 and not with effect from 29.11.1975 (the date of initial categorisation) or from 1.4.1976 when persons junior to the petitioner were given promotion to that post. 7. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that it is now late in the day for the petitioner to challenge the categorisation accorded to him in the year 1975 and which he had then accepted without any protest or objection. Mr. Mukherjee points out that the petitioner's initial categorisation was made by the communication dated 29.11.75 (Annexure 6) and his appeal before the appellate committee had also been turned down (order not enclosed). It is contended that so long as these two orders are not quashed, the issue of categorisation of the petitioner cannot be reopened for fresh consideration and it is further pointed out that in this writ petition the petitioner can no longer challenge and, he has not in fact challanged these two orders. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the relief’s sought by the petitioner are barred by the principles of waiver and acquiscence and also on account of long delay. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the relief’s sought by the petitioner are barred by the principles of waiver and acquiscence and also on account of long delay. Mr. Mukherjee further contends that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court twice, substantially for the same relief’s and the same having been denied to him, it was no longer open to him to move this Court all over again for the same relief’s and his writ petition was not entertainable on that score also. 8. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's categorisation as Administrative Officer was secured by statute and the action of the respondent authorities in categorising him as Assistant Administrative Officer was void ab initio. Mr. Prasad's challenge to the petitioner's categorisation as Assistant Administrative officer is based on a very short point actually. In support of his contention that following the nationalisation the petitioner was entitled to be given the rank of Administrative officer and not the lower rank of Assistant Administrative officer, Mr. Prasad relied upon the National Insurance Company Limited (Merger) Scheme, 1973, a statutory scheme framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 16(1) of the Nationalisation Act, 1972. By virtue of this scheme Ruby General Insurance Company Limited stood transferred and vested in the National Insurance Company Limited. Para 5 of this scheme which deals with the transfer of service of existing employees is in the following terms: "Every whole-time officer or other employee of any merged company who was employed by such company immediately before the specified day shall on and from that day become an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the transferee company and shall hold his office or service under the transferee company on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights as to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissibe to him if there had been no such transfer as referred to in paragraph 3 and shall continue to do so, unless and until his employment in the transferee company is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions are duly altered by the transferee company or by any other scheme framed under the Act." 9. Mr. Mr. Prasad submitted that this provision was intended to secure the service of the employees of the merged companies in the transferee company on the same terms and conditions as would have been admissible to them if there had been no such transfer. He contends that the post of Branch Manager which the petitioner held in Ruby General Insurance Company Limited was admittedly equal to that of Administrative officer and hence in terms of paragraph 5 of the merger scheme as quoted above, the petitioner had a statutory right to be categorised on the post of Administrative officer. Referring to stand of the respondents (vide Annexure 19) that the petitioner's categorisation in the cadre of Assistant Administrative officer was made in terms of General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Services of Officers) Scheme, 1975 (in short 'Rationalisation Scheme for Officers'). Mr. Prasad contended that the provisions of this scheme were not applicable to the case of the petitioner. At this stage it is to be noted that Mr. Prasad candidly stated that he pressed the petitioners claim on the premise that the Rationalisation Scheme for Officers did not apply to the petitioner. Replying to the question regarding the position in case it was held that the Scheme under consideration applied to the case of the petitioner, Mr. Prasad fairly admitted that in that event the categorisation of the petitioner as made by the respondents cannot be called unauthorised and hence the petitioner shall have no case. 10. In support of the contention that the Rationalisation Scheme for Officers did not apply to the petitioner (or for that matter to any Officer). Mr. Prasad invited my attention to para 3 (1) of the Scheme which defines 'Officer' in the following terms: "Officer means an employee appointed in India before the commencement of this Scheme and serving whether in India or outside India, in a position other than supervisory, clerical or subordinate position, and categorised as holding any of the posts referred to in the Schedules but does not include an employee declared as a member of the development staff by the Committee appointed by the Board." Mr. Prasad submitted that in the definition above, the exclusion of an employee in a supervisory position in effect put all Officers beyond the purview of the Scheme. Mr. Prasad submitted that in the definition above, the exclusion of an employee in a supervisory position in effect put all Officers beyond the purview of the Scheme. Mr. Prasad's argument is that supervision is the essence of an Officer's function. It is contended that in its very nature the duty of an Officer was to supervise the work performed by the subordinates rather than carrying out the work personally. Thus, according to Mr. Prasad all officers (like the petitioner) occupied a supervisory position and were expressly excluded from the scope of the Scheme. 11. The submission urged by Mr. Prasad is unacceptable for more reasons than one. First, it is to be noted that if, as contended by Mr. Prasad, Officers are to be kept out of the purview of the Scheme, then no one shall be covered by it as all the classes of 'employees have been expressly excluded from the scheme. Such a position clearly cannot be sanctioned. Secondly, the expression 'Supervisory position' does not have the meaning which Mr. Prasad wishes to put over it. To my mind the expression 'Supervisory position' has been used in contradistinction to 'Managerial position' occupied by Officers. That have just said is made further manifest, as pointed out by Mr. Mukherjee by the three schemes drawn up to deal with the different classes of employees. 12. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the merger/integration of the private companies following nationalisation of the business of general insurance involved categorisation/ rationalisalion of different classes of employees. For this purpose three separate Schemes were framed (each under section 16 (1) of the Nationalisation Act) dealing with the different classes of employees. These Schemes are as follows: (i) General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974. (ii) General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1975. (iii) General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Development Staff) Scheme, 1976. The 1976 Scheme (at serial no. (iii) above) is in respect of all the development staff (both Officers and non-officers). The development staff are those who are known in the common parlance as Insurance Agents. Of the two schemes concerning the administrative staff, the 1974 Scheme (at serial no. (i) above is in respect of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate staff and the 1975 Scheme (at serial no. The development staff are those who are known in the common parlance as Insurance Agents. Of the two schemes concerning the administrative staff, the 1974 Scheme (at serial no. (i) above is in respect of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate staff and the 1975 Scheme (at serial no. (ii) above and which is under consideration in this application) relates to Officers. From this itself, it is clear that 'Officers' are different from 'supervisory staff'. Some provisions of the 1974 Scheme is further revealing. Paragraph 3 of the Scheme is as follows: "Application.-The provisions herein contained shall apply to all persons (other than Officers and development staff) working in Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate positions in India." Paragraph 3(i) defines 'Subordinate staff' as follows: "Subordinate staff' means an employee working in a position such as Daftary, Machine Operator, Jamadar, Head Peon, Liftman, Gardner, Plumber, Watchman and Sweeper." Paragraph 5 dealing with categorisation throws some light on what is meant by supervisory staff. The relevant portion of paragraph 5 is reproduced below: "(5) Categorisation of employees; (1) The employees be categorised into the appropriate categories on the basis of their substantive positions and nature of work as on the 1st day of January 1973, as specified in subparagraphs (2) to (4). (2)(a) Superintendents; Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the following shall be eligible to be considered as Superintendents, namely:- (i) all those designated as Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents, Staff Assistants, Head Clerks, and Supervisors working in a supervisory capacity." From the above, it is clear that supervisory staff comprise of Section Heads, Head Clerks, Superintendents, Supervisors etc. and occupy a position between the Officers above and Assistants, Clerks etc. below. It is evident that in paragraph 3(1) of the 1975 Scheme for Rationalisation of Officers the 'supervisory position' has been used to distinguish it from Officers in respect of whom the 1975 Scheme has been drawn up and to which position the petitioner admittedly belonged. 13. Confronted with this Mr. Prasad next contended that the definition of Officer in paragraph 3(1) of the 1975 Rationalisation Scheme for Officers excluded all those Officers from the purview of the Scheme who were categorised in the schedule of the Scheme. He referred to the following passage in the definition clause “...... 13. Confronted with this Mr. Prasad next contended that the definition of Officer in paragraph 3(1) of the 1975 Rationalisation Scheme for Officers excluded all those Officers from the purview of the Scheme who were categorised in the schedule of the Scheme. He referred to the following passage in the definition clause “...... ...in a position other than Supervisory, Clerical or Subordinate position and categorised as holding any of the posts referred to in the schedules” (emphasis supplied to indicate the passage relied upon by Mr. Prasad in support of his contention). What he contended was that definition does not only exclude employees occupying Supervisory, Clerical or Subordinate positions but also excluded Officers categorised as holding any of the posts referred to in the schedule. The first schedule to the Scheme categorises Officers right from the Chairman to the Assistant Administrative Officer who according to Mr. Prasad's contention have been put out of the scope of the Act. 14. The contention is plainly unacceptable and I am afraid I don't share the same meaning as Mr. Prasad seeks to put .over the passage in question.' I read, the definition clause to mean that 'Officer' means an employee occupying positions other, than Supervisory, Clerical or Subordinate and one who is categorised in the schedule (words omitted and added by me to make my meaning clear). It is manifest to me that the Scheme under consideration has been drawn up for rationalisation/categorisation of the Officers who have been enumerated in the schedule to the scheme. 15. This matter can also be looked at from a different point of view. In case the contention' put forward' by Mr. Prasad is accepted, then all the Officers must be taken out of the purview' of the Scheme. Other categories of employees having been expressly excluded from its scope, the Scheme would, thus, become applicable to no one and this would be rendered utterly useless and meaningless. Putting such a meaning over the words as suggested by Mr. Prasad would be contrary to all known canons of interpretation. 16. I accordingly find and hold that this statutory scheme was framed in exercise of powers under section 16(1) of the Nationalisation Act with the specific object of rationalisation/categorisation of the Officers. Putting such a meaning over the words as suggested by Mr. Prasad would be contrary to all known canons of interpretation. 16. I accordingly find and hold that this statutory scheme was framed in exercise of powers under section 16(1) of the Nationalisation Act with the specific object of rationalisation/categorisation of the Officers. The admitted position is that the petitioner, before nationalisation, held the managerial position and was an Officer and would, therefore, be wholly covered by the provisions of this Scheme. 17. Mr. Prasad further contends that in any event the petitioner was entitled to get promotion to the post of Administrative Officer between the year 1977 to 1980 when persons junior to him were given promotion to that post. Mr. Mukherjee; learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out that during this period the petitioner faced a number of departmental enquiries some of which led to infliction of punishment to him. He brought to my notice the reference of these proceedings and produced before me the orders awarding punishment to the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that on' each occasion the case of the petitioner was duly considered for promotion but he was not found fit for promotion on account of pendency of departmental proceedings or as the punishment awarded to him was not over and it was only in 1988 that be was actually found fit for promotion and the promotion was duly accorded to him. I am satisfied that on this score also the petitioner cannot make any legitimate grievance. 18. No other point was urged before me. 19. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application and I hereby dismiss the same. However, without any order as to costs.