MALAY SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IT is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE case of the Petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a trained Graduate teacher in a Government School on 22. 8. 1978. He acquired sufficient experience and underwent various trainings sponsored by the Government. On 18. 6. 1983 he joined in a post of Coordinator and Obtained Post graduate Degree. The scale and status of the coordinator is of the Lowest Gazetted. Initially the scale was Rs. 660. 00 to 1400. 00 and it was revised to Rs. 1820. 00 to 3200. 00. The Petitioner was confirmed in the post of coordinator by a Government Notification dated 4. 8. 1983. Though the Petitioner was holding the post of Coordinator, it has been alleged that he was not given the scale prescribed for the lowest gazetted officers inspite of repeated representations and demands made in this respect. It has been contended that in the past many graduate teachers appointed as coordinator were given the lowest gazetted scale either initially or within a year or two, the Petitioner cited a few examples where teachers joining as Coordinators long after the date of joining of the Petitioner as Coordinator were not only given a higher scale of pay but were also promoted to the post of deputy Director. The allegation of the Petitioner is that discrimination was made in his case and he was not treated identically with other officers of his grade and rank and in that manner gross discrimination was made. ( 3 ) IT has further been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that he suddenly discovered that his name appears in the combined seniority list of A. E. O. , A. P. O. , D. S. O and equivalent. The Petitioner never worked in any of these capacities nor he enjoyed any fringe benefits available to the A. E. Os. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a suitable writ declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to the scale of Coordinator with effect from 18. 6. 1983. He also claims seniority in the cadre of Coordinator with effect from the aforesaid date and for consequential benefits based on such seniority. ( 4 ) THE prayer of the Petitioner is opposed on behalf of the State Respondents. 6. 1983. He also claims seniority in the cadre of Coordinator with effect from the aforesaid date and for consequential benefits based on such seniority. ( 4 ) THE prayer of the Petitioner is opposed on behalf of the State Respondents. The contention of the Respondents is that the application is hopelessly barred by limitation as on account of delay caused by the Petitioner to approach the court for his redress some rights have accrued to the other persons by this time. Further case of the Respondents is that those who were given the gazetted scale for working as Cpordinator were Post graduate Teachers with scale of pay identical to that of Coordinators. Respondents contend that normally for entering into the gazetted scale one is to go through the selection process as prescribed by the Slkkim Service rules. Therefore the Petitioner is to go through that process for getting gazetted status and scale. Post Graduate Teachers need not pass through the above described process as they were already in the scale identical to that of coordinator. ( 5 ) IN this Writ Petition we are to see if discrimination was made in respect to the petitioner unlawfully and in mala fide manner. ( 6 ) JUST a few days back this court decided (Ram Bilash Kumar v. State of Sikkim)where facts and the points involved were the same as in the instant case. In Ram Bilash kumar's case this court observed that there was distinction between scale and status which the Education Department could not appreciate properly. Since the question of equal pay for equal work was not agitated in that case, it was held by this court that the Petitioner was eligible for the seniority as Coordinator from the date of his joining the post of Coordinator. But for the purpose of eligibility of lowest gazetted scale effect was given from the date on which the Petitioner first raised his voice of protest and made the representation. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid case we find that the petitioner never applied for nor opted for or appointed as AEO or APO. We also observed that not only serving as AEO, the Petitioner was not even given the extra allowances which the AEOs are entitled. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid case we find that the petitioner never applied for nor opted for or appointed as AEO or APO. We also observed that not only serving as AEO, the Petitioner was not even given the extra allowances which the AEOs are entitled. ( 8 ) BEFORE examining the merit of the case and the similarity of this case with the case of Ram Bilash Kumar we should deal with the question of delay. There is no doubt that some delay was caused so far as payment at the rate of lowest gazetted scale is concerned. But so far as the question of seniority is concerned we find that the Petitioner did not have any grievance as he was shown as senior in many of the lists published earlier. In one of the lists containing names of the officers of administrative and supervisory wings of the education Department as updated till 31. 8. 1983 and also in the list showing present staff position of SIE as on 1. 1. 1993. the petitioner was shown as senior to the other contenders. Only in the Notification issued on 19. 3. 1996 officers junior to the Petitioner were shown as having been promoted to the higher posts with higher scale. The contention of the Petitioner is that during all these days he went on submitting representations and, therefore, it cannot be said that he remained idle over his right. and he should not be allowed to agitate the same in this Writ court after lapse of so much of time. Respondents controvert this contention and cites a decision reported in (Amrit Lal v. Collector, cec Revenue ). In the aforesaid decision at para 24 Supreme Court observed that merely by filing repeated or delayed representations, a Petitioner cannot get over the obstacles. ( 9 ) WE have already given out a few dates which would show that there was no doubt in the mind of the Petitioner so far as his seniority in the service of Coordinator is concerned though he was aggrieved as proper scale or pay was not being given to him. But all his hopes for higher scale and seniority were shattered only when some of his juniors were given promotion to higher posts and scales. We have already noted that it was done on 19. 3. 1996. The Petitioner on 9. 3. But all his hopes for higher scale and seniority were shattered only when some of his juniors were given promotion to higher posts and scales. We have already noted that it was done on 19. 3. 1996. The Petitioner on 9. 3. 1996 sent demand justice notice through his lawyer followed by the reminder sent on 1. 4. 1996. We. therefore, find that though the Petitioner made much delay in agitating his claim over lowest gazetted scale before the High Court but he did not make any delay in approaching the court for his promotion, etc. on the basis of his seniority as Coordinator. The Writ, it may be noted, was filed on 23. 9. 1996. On this we hold that the aforesaid decision is not fully applicable in the case of the Petitioner. It might be applicable in the matter of his pay or scale as Coordinator with effect from 18. 6. 1983 but not with respect to his seniority and consequential benefits based oh such seniority. ( 10 ) WE have already noted about our decision in Ram Bilash Kumar's case. This petitioner also joined as Graduate Teacher like Ram Bilash Kumar. Both of them were transferred as Coordinators and obtained Post graduate degree and training. None of them were given the appropriate scale of 'coordinator which is like that of lowest gazetted posts. In both the cases their names were included in the common seniority list of AEOs and others to which cadre none of them ever belonged. Like Ram Bilash Kumar this Petitioner was also not given the fringe financial benefits available to the AEOs. Therefore, in all respect they were identically placed and hence the case of the Petitioner should be treated in the manner in which the case of ram Bilash Kumar was dealt with. ( 11 ) RAM Bilash Kumar joined as Coordinator from 7. 9. 1984 and this court ordered for conferring seniority on Shri Ram Bilash kumar as Coordinator from that date. In the instant case the Petitioner has been functioning as Coordinator since' 18. 6. 1983. He was also confirmed in the said post within a short while. The Petitioner should be given seniority in the post of Coordinator with effect from 18. 6. 1983. In the instant case the Petitioner has been functioning as Coordinator since' 18. 6. 1983. He was also confirmed in the said post within a short while. The Petitioner should be given seniority in the post of Coordinator with effect from 18. 6. 1983. ( 12 ) WITH respect to the question of financial benefit, we have already mentioned that in Ham Bilash Kumar's case we did not propose to encumber the State exchequer from the date of his appointment as Coordinator. While dealing with the above quoted supreme Court decision we expressed our views that for claiming financial benefits the petitioner should have approached the court long before and' in no doing so he has forfeited his right over such a claim. Hence, it should be from a much subsequent date. In the earlier case this court ordered Shri Ram bilash Kumar to have found entry in the lowest gazetted scale with effect from 22. 10. 1994 when he first raised his voice of protest. From the seniority list we find and also it is the admitted position that Ram Bilash kumar was junior to the present Petitioner. Hence, in all fairness, the lowest gazetted scale should be admissible to the Petitioner from a date not beyond the date on which Shri ram Bilash Kumar was made eligible by the order of this court. ( 13 ) IN consideration of the facts and circumstances and in view of the observations made In the body of the judgment and also the views taken by this court in Civil Writ Petition no. 28 of 1997 it is. ( 14 ) THAT the Writ Petition be and the same is allowed in part on contest without costs. The name of the Petitioner be deleted from the common seniority list of AEO and others The name of the Petitioner should find place in the gradation list of the Coordinators treating him to be in that post for the purpose of seniority from 18. 6. 1983. However, he be treated to have found entry into the lowest gazetted scale with effect from 22. 10. 1994 with appropriate fixation of pay in that scale as permissible under the rules. The Petitioner, if and when promoted to higher posts, would find place in the seniority list of that post above all the persons who joined as Coordinator after 18. 6. 1983. 10. 1994 with appropriate fixation of pay in that scale as permissible under the rules. The Petitioner, if and when promoted to higher posts, would find place in the seniority list of that post above all the persons who joined as Coordinator after 18. 6. 1983. irrespective of the dates of their promotion. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .