C. K. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ direction or order declaring the action of the respondents in not conferring all the benefits to the petitioner including the benefits of upper grade selection grade fixation of pay arrears of salary fixation of pension gratuity revised pension etc. being illegal ultra vires and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Talati-cum-Mantri on September 1 1955 One A. G. Shah was appointed to the said post on April 1 1956 and one M. A. Patel was appointed to the said cadre on March 1 1958 Thus the petitioner was senior to both of them. The first provisional seniority list showing the position as on October 1 1961 was published by the Department on June 15 1965 The petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 290. Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 260 while Mr. Patel was shown at Sr. No. 332. It is therefore the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was senior he was wrongly shown as junior in the provisional seniority list of 1965 showing the position of 1961. A final seniority list carne to be published on March 24 1969 showing the position as on November 1 1962 wherein also the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 376 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 232 and Mr. Patel was shown at Sr. No. 440. The petitioner was thus shown senior to Mr. Shah but junior to Mr. Patel illegally. Again a seniority list was published on January 1 1979 showing the position as on January 1 1973 The petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 269 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 159 and Mr. Patel at Sr. No. 306. Ultimately the final seniority list of Talati-cum-Mantri was published on September 10 1981 showing the position as on July 1 1979 The petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 231 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 123 and Mr. Patel was shown at Sr. No. 121. It appears that pursuant to the seniority list prepared on January 1 1979 Mr. Ultimately the final seniority list of Talati-cum-Mantri was published on September 10 1981 showing the position as on July 1 1979 The petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 231 Mr. Shah was shown at Sr. No. 123 and Mr. Patel was shown at Sr. No. 121. It appears that pursuant to the seniority list prepared on January 1 1979 Mr. Shah came to be promoted to the higher post of Circle Inspector on January 1 1982 Since the petitioner was not promoted he made an application on March 10 1985 The Deputy District Development Officer Ahmedabad District Panchayat passed an order dt. December 15 1987 pursuant to the application of the petitioner that looking to he date of entry of the petitioner in service he was required to be placed after serial No. 120 and before Sr. No. 121 in the seniority list as on July 1 1979 He accordingly passed an order for placement of the petitioner in the seniority list showing the position of July 1 1979 from Sr. No. 231 to Sr. No. 120 It was ordered that the petitioner was also entitled to other benefits pursuant to the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list of July 1979. Thereafter the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Circle Inspector on July 16 1988 but within less than two months the petitioner retired due to superannuation with effect from August 31 1988 He made representation on September 29 1988 at Annexure. 8 to the petition requesting the authorities to grant all benefits to which he was otherwise entitled and an order came to be passed at Annexure. A on September 11 1991 by the first respondent wherein it is stated that it is true that the petitioner was entitled to deemed date considering him as senior to Shri A. G. Shah. It was therefore ordered that his salary is required to be computed on that basis for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was however ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to deemed date for the purpose of pensionary benefits but he would not be entitled to get salary increments gratuity etc. and the salary was required to be fixed notionaly. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. ( 3 ) MR. It was however ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to deemed date for the purpose of pensionary benefits but he would not be entitled to get salary increments gratuity etc. and the salary was required to be fixed notionaly. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. ( 3 ) MR. R. V. Deshmukh learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to get all benefits including arrears of salary seniority promotion and pensionary benefits. He submitted that the mistake was committed by the respondent-authorities and as per settled principle of law a party cannot take undue advantage of his own wrong. It was the fault on the part of the authorities in not putting the petitioner at proper placement in the seniority list. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner entered Government service in 1955 while Mr. A. G. Shah and Mr. M. A. Patel entered in 1956 and 1958 respectively and yet both of them were shown as senior to the petitioner illegally. Mr. Deshmukh contended that in these circumstances the petitioner was deprived of upper grade which had been granted to other similarly situated persons with effect from 1961. The said decision was taken by the authorities in the year 190 and the petitioner was intimated about this fact in July 1970 Immediately therefore he made an application Annexure. I to the petition on July 19 1970 He submitted that in these circumstances it was expected of the authorities as model employer to grant such benefits to the petitioner to which he was otherwise entitled. Unfortunately the respondent- authorities did not grant those benefits. ( 4 ) MR. Deshmukh also submitted that in any case after the order Annexure. D came to be passed granting benefits to the petitioner with effect from 1st July 1979 there was no earthly reason to deprive the petitioner of those benefits. He submitted that the authorities ought to have granted all the benefits to the petitioner on the basis of that order. The action taken by the respondent authorities in passing the order Annexure. A on September 11 depriving the petitioner of monetary benefits was not only contrary to law but against justice equity and good conscience. He submitted that the authorities ought to have granted all the benefits to the petitioner on the basis of that order. The action taken by the respondent authorities in passing the order Annexure. A on September 11 depriving the petitioner of monetary benefits was not only contrary to law but against justice equity and good conscience. He therefore submitted that the petition should be allowed by granting all the benefits including the upper grade which had been granted in favour of other persons and also by granting interest. ( 5 ) MR. Munshaw learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 on the other hand supported the order passed by the respondent no. 1 and submitted that in accordance with law deemed date has been granted to the petitioner and he is ordered to be placed to which he should have been placed in the seniority list but for the mistake of the department and also by granting benefits. He however submitted that an order of national fixation of the salary was not contrary to law and does not require any interference in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) MR. T. H. Sompura learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that there was gross delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the petition requires. to be allowed partly. So far as the claim of the petitioner regarding upper grade is concerned even if the case of the petitioner can be said to be well founded it is a matter of remote past. No doubt Mr. Deshmukh submitted that the order of not granting upper grade was passed in 1969 and was brought to the notice of the petitioner in 1970 and immediately thereafter he approached the authorities by making an application (Annexure. I) in July 1970. But in my opinion the submission of the respondents is well founded that even if the petitioner approached the authorities in 1970 and the authorities did not accept the demands he had not taken any action in any competent court of law and for the first-time he approached the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal and this court in 1990-91. Thus there is delay of almost 20 years. Thus there is delay of almost 20 years. In my opinion no relief be granted to the petitioner after a gross delay of about two decades. Therefore without entering into the merits of the matter as to whether the petitioner was entitled to upgradation or not the prayer requires to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. ( 8 ) REGARDING other benefits however the petition requires to be allowed. As is clear an order came to be passed by the Deputy District Development Officer on December 15 1987 (Annexure. D) and the petitioner was ordered to be placed at Sr. No. 120/1 instead of 231 in the seniority list showing position was ordered to be placed at Sr. No. decided that on that basis the petitioner was entitled to all other benefits. Mr. Munshaw learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the said order must be read alongwith the order passed by the first respondent on September 11 1991 (Annexure. A) and since deemed date has been granted to the petitioner by fixing salary on national basis and to grant pensionary benefits. the petitioner cannot make any grievance nor can claim arrears of salary and other benefits. I do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Munshaw. When the order was passed placing the petitioner in the seniority list of 120 with effect from July 1 1979 and when other benefits have also been granted there was no justification for the respondent authorities to deprive the petitioner of those benefits. In fact it was expected of the authorities to grant all the benefits without compelling the petitioner to approach the Tribunal or this court or by making application since the order was passed by the authorities granting those benefits. The order passed by the Deputy District Development Officer was never challenged by the respondent authorities nor was reviewed modified or cancelled. In these circumstances the contention of Mr. Deshmukh is well founded that the petitioner ought to have been granted benefits pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy District Development Officer on December 15 1987 placing the petitioner at Sr. No. 120 Accordingly it is ordered that the respondent authorities will award all the benefits of arrears of salary other benefits including pensionary benefits on the basis of the order Annexure. D dt. No. 120 Accordingly it is ordered that the respondent authorities will award all the benefits of arrears of salary other benefits including pensionary benefits on the basis of the order Annexure. D dt. December 15 1987 The respondent-authorities will make payment on the basis of that order. Such payment will be made expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this court. The petitioner is also entitled to the interest inasmuch as there is default on the part of the respondent authorities and the petitioner has been deprived of the legitimate dues for many years. Such interest will be at the rate of 12% as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Krishna Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1983 SC 578 and in State of Kerala vs. Padmanabhan reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 . In the result this petition is partly allowed with costs. Petition Partly Allowed. .