R. H. ZAIDI, J. By means of this peti tion, under. Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner mainly prays for a writ; order or direction in the nature of man damus commanding the respondents to promote him on the post of Junior En gineer from the date persons inferior in merit and junior to him, were promoted as "junior Engineers", with all consequential benefits. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 2-7-1993 and 5-7-1993, contained in Annexures-10 to 12 passed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 respectively, whereby respondent No. 6 was posted as Junior Engineer at Chandpur, district Bijnor and was directed to take over charge from the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to him, has also been made. 2. The relevant facts of the case as unfolded in the writ petition are that on 13-4-1963, the petitioner, who possessed the requisite educational qualifications High School and I. T. L (Electrical Super visor Course) and fulfilled all other condi tions was appointed Town Incharge of Chandpur, district Bijnor, in U. P. State Electricity Department, on work-charged basis. Petitioner, thereafter, also passed Intermediate examination. It was in the year 1968 that interview for promotion was held by the departmental selection committee in which the petitioner was selected and was placed at serial No. 1 in merit list, besides other candidates whose names have been mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On 26-6-1968 the petitioner and other candidates selected for promotion were designated as Asstt. Supervisors. The appointment of the petitioner and other persons were duly sanctioned by the Superintending En gineer on temporary basis vide order dated 7-6-1969. It is stated that the duties of the Town Incharge and Asstt. Supervisor were exactly the same. Subsequently 7 posts of Town Incharges created on 17-12-1968, were allotted to the Electricity Divisions, Moradabad, Badaun and Bijnor vide order dated 7-6-1969 and the petitioner and 6 others were promoted to the posts of Town Incharge from the posts of the work-charged Asstt. Supervisors on the regular basis; but the pay scale as mentioned in the order of promotion was less than what they were getting as Asstt. Supervisors. The petitioner, therefore, made a repre sentation for redesignation of the post of Town Incharge as Asstt. Supervisor. Supervisors on the regular basis; but the pay scale as mentioned in the order of promotion was less than what they were getting as Asstt. Supervisors. The petitioner, therefore, made a repre sentation for redesignation of the post of Town Incharge as Asstt. Supervisor. The said representation was favourably recom mended by the S. D. O. It has been claimed that from 22-9-1973 the petitioner has been working as Junior Engineer, reliance has been placed on Annexures-6 and 8 to the writ petition in support of said asser tion. Petitioner has passed departmental examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer held in the year 1977, the result of which was declared in the year 1980. In the year 1981, the persons, who were inferior in merit and junior in service, working in work charged establishment, were promoted to the post of Junior En gineers vide order dated 1-10-1980, but the case of the petitioner, who was holding a permanent and regular post was not con sidered for promotion and was not promoted as Junior Engineer. The petitioner as soon as he came to know about the aforesaid order, made a repre sentation praying for his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer on 7-8-1981. Al though the representations filed by the petitioner were not decided but petitioner was deputed to discharge the duties as Junior Engineer in Chandpur Town vide order dated 31-1-1986 and since then he has been continuously working as Junior Engineer. Subsequently the Chandpur circle was divided into two parts i. e. Chandpur East and Chandpur West as nobody was prepared to come to the said Sub-circle of Chandpur, the petitioner was asked and authorised to hold the addition al charge of the other part of the said circle. Since no heed was paid by the com petent authority to the representations filed by the petitioner and the candidates inferior in merit and junior in service were being given better treatment and preference over him and as the petitioner was being continuously discriminated in the matter of employment, he had to ap proach this Court and file the present peti tion praying for above mentioned reliefs. 3. On the request made by the learned Standing Counsel, time was granted to him to file counter- affidavit but no counter-affidavit was filed within the said time. 3. On the request made by the learned Standing Counsel, time was granted to him to file counter- affidavit but no counter-affidavit was filed within the said time. Thereafter another opportunity was provided to the learned Standing Counsel to file the; counter-affidavit and stop order was passed but even then counter-affidavit was not filed. This Court on 6-12-1993 was pleased to pass the fol lowing order after hearing the Counsel for the parties:- "by order dated 6-8-1993, this Court granted three weeks time to Counsel to the respondents to file counter-affidavit. By another order dated 8-10-93, this Court further granted three weeks time for filing counter-affidavit with the rider that no further time will be granted. " 4. The grievance raised by petitioner is that respondents have illegally dis criminated the petitioner in the matter of promotion inasmuch as various persons have been promoted in the year 1981 whereas petitioner has not been promoted although he is senior to them. 5. In the circumstances, respondents are called upon to promote the petitioner with effect from the year 1981 on the post of Junior Engineer within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served on the respondents. 6. In case, respondents are not in a position to promote the petitioner on the said post due to any legal obstacle, respon dents shall file counter-affidavit within the said period showing the legal hurdle in the way of petitioners promotion. Respon dents shall also in the counter-affidavit explain the reasons as to why persons whose names are mentioned in para 16 of the writ petition have been promoted on the post of Junior Engineer whereas petitioner, who is senior to them, has not been given promotion. 7. List this petition after six weeks for admission. 8. In spite of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, petitioner was not formally promoted to the post of Junior Engineer although there existed no obstacle in his promotion as he was al ready working as Junior Engineer. 9. Thereafter counter-affidavit alongwith an application for vacation of the aforesaid interim order was filed on 11-1-1994. In the counter-affidavit the material facts stated in the writ petition have not been disputed. 9. Thereafter counter-affidavit alongwith an application for vacation of the aforesaid interim order was filed on 11-1-1994. In the counter-affidavit the material facts stated in the writ petition have not been disputed. The stand taken by the respondents is that since the petitioner was holding a regular post of Town Incharge and was working on the said post, his claim for promotion to the next higher post of Junior Engineer was not considered and the persons who were working in the work charged estab lishment only were considered fit for promotion and were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer. It has also been as serted that writ petition was filed after lapse of several years, from the date of promotions in question were made, the claim of the petitioner was liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was better in merit, possessed requisite qualifications and was a regular and permanent employee of the respon dent No. 1, therefore had comparatively better claim for the promotion to the next higher post of junior engineer, the respon dent Nos. 1 to 5 acting in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the relevant rules and acting arbitrarily did not consider his claim for promotion and illegally promoted the per sons who were not even members of the service and were working only on the work charged establishment. It has also been urged that the persons working on work charged establishment could not be given better treatment than to the regular employees of the department. He further urged that the petitioner and the other persons who were promoted as junior en gineers belong to one and the same class. Subsequently the petitioners services were regularised and he achieved better status in the department. It was, therefore, not open to the respondent No. 1 to act arbitrarily and to promote the employees of work charged establishment completely ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It was therefore urged that the petitioner who was actually working and discharging duties of junior engineer since 1973 was entitled to be treated as regular junior engineer with all consequential benefits, atleast from the date the other inferior and junior work charged employees were promoted to the said post. It was therefore urged that the petitioner who was actually working and discharging duties of junior engineer since 1973 was entitled to be treated as regular junior engineer with all consequential benefits, atleast from the date the other inferior and junior work charged employees were promoted to the said post. It was also con tended that the moment the petitioners interest was adversely affected and prejudiced, he atonce approached the authorities and filed representations for ventilation of his grievances but till date inspite of several requests and reminders made by him no heed has been paid to them, by the authorities concerned. The representations filed by the petitioner were still pending disposal before the said authorities. Therefore, there was no ques tion of delay or laches at all involved in the case and further it was a case of recurring and continuous cause of action. 11. On the other hand learned Coun sel appearing for the contesting respon dents contended that the persons who were working as assistant supervisors in the work charged establishment were promoted vide Boardss order dated 18-9-1979 as they were getting fixed emolu ments without any 1uture prospects of promotion or security of service. Petitioner being regular employee was holding a permanent post of town in-charge. which had no promotional chan nel. Therefore his claim for promotion was not considered. It was also urged that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of junior engineer was also liable to be rejected on the ground of laches, as the writ petition was filed long after the work charged employees were promoted as junior engineers. 12. I have considered the rival sub missions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case. 13. The questions that arise for con sideration in the present case are as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of junior engineer or not, as to whether the respondents could promote the persons working on the work charged establishment of the department completely ignoring the claim of the petitioner and as to whether of the peti tion is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. 14. 14. The facts that the petitioner and other persons who have been promoted were recruited to the same class and cadre, in the merit list the petitioner was placed at serial number 1 and subsequently on the basis of the said merit list he was ap pointed/promoted on a regular post of Town Incharge have not been disputed by the contesting respondents. The stand taken by the contesting respondents would appear from the statements made in paragraphs 6,11,13 and 17 of the counter-affidavit, relevant excerpts thereof are quoted below: "6. . . . . . . . . . The post of Assistant Supervisor was a work charge post and there was no specific cadre of Asstt. Supervisor in the Respondent establishment whereas the post of Town In charge was newly created and has a special cadre in the Respondent Establishment. The work Charge Employees designated as Assistant Su pervisor were paid a fix salary of Rs. 182. 00 per month at that time whereas the Town Incharge was placed in the grade of Rs. 100-180 which was revised from time to time with other service benefits such as D. A. and Annual increment etc. It is also relevant to mention that the persons appointed on the post of Town Incharge were regular employees of the Board with all service benefits including Provident Fund. Medical benefits find other benefits which were ap plicable to other employees of the Respondent establishment. 11. . . . . . . . Some of the employees who worked alongwith the petitioner as Work Charge Employees and continued to work as such till 1981 were considered fit for being ab sorbed as Junior Engineers as per Boards order dated 18tb Sept. , 1979 duly modified by Office Memorandum dated 1-10-1980. 13. . . . . . . . The petitioner was appointed as Town Incharge in the regular strength of the Board in the year 1969 whereas other persons continued to work as Assistant Supervisor in the Work Charge Establishment. . . . . . . in 1979 as the post of Assistant Supervisor lost its utility the Board by B. O. dated 18th Sept. , 1979 decided that those Assistant Supervisors who are eligible should be appointed as Junior Engineers after due screening in compliance of the aforesaid order persons mentioned from SI. Nos. . . . . . . in 1979 as the post of Assistant Supervisor lost its utility the Board by B. O. dated 18th Sept. , 1979 decided that those Assistant Supervisors who are eligible should be appointed as Junior Engineers after due screening in compliance of the aforesaid order persons mentioned from SI. Nos. 2 to 11 in paragraph under reply were appointed as Junior Engineer in 1981. 17. . . . . . . . . There is no promotional channel from the post of Town Incharge to the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner was neither dis criminated nor the Respondents acted in an arbitrary manner The persons who were ap pointed as Junior Engineer in 1981 were work ing as Assistant Supervisor at the relevant time and they were appointed as per Boards Order dated 18th September, 1979 as for his Town Incharge are concerned, there is no order from the Board to promote them as Junior Engineer. " 15. The stand taken by the respon dents appears to be highly unreasonable, arbitrary and violative to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as the relevant service rules. Articles 14, 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution of India provide as under:- article 14.- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the Territory of India. Article 16 (1 ).-There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any officer under the State. Article 16 (2 ).-No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the Stale. " 16. Article 16 is the specific applica tion of general principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the matters relating to the appointments to the public offices. The said Article guarantees that all citizens are entitled to equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment or ap pointment to any office under the State and is specific application of general prin ciple of equality as guaranteed by Article 14. The said Article guarantees that all citizens are entitled to equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment or ap pointment to any office under the State and is specific application of general prin ciple of equality as guaranteed by Article 14. In General Manager (Southern Rail way) and another v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, it was observed by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court as under:- ". . . . . Articles 16 (1) and (2) really give effect to the equality before law guaranteed by Article 14 and to the prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Article 15 (1 ). The three provisions form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. " 17. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and others, AIR 1967 SC 1427 , while dealing with the scope of Ar ticle 16 of the Constitution of India, it was ruled by the Apex Court as under:- ". . . . . . The relevant law on the subject is well settled. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State or to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. If gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. 1 18. It is also well settled in law that principle of equality is applicable to the matters relating to the promotions to the public offices. 19. In The General Manager, Govern ment Branch Press and another v. B. D. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 , it was ruled as under:- "19. It is now well settled that the expres sion "matters relating to employment" used in Article 16 (1) is not confined to initial matter prior to the act of employment, but com prehends all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment, such as, provisions as to salary, increments, leave, gratuity, pension, age of su perannuation, promotion and even termination of employment. It is further well established that Articles 14, 15 (1) and 16 (1) form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and sup plement each other. If any authority is needed for the above enunciation, reference may be made to the observations made by Gajendragadkar, J. , as he then was, in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 (supra ). " 20. State is not expected to dis criminate between similarly situated per sons and act arbitrarily. It is bound to act fairly and reasonably. It is not open to the State to make unreasonable classifications between the members of the same class or cadre; otherwise the action taken by it will be discriminatory within Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. Petitioner and other persons selected with him were entitled to the same treatment. If at all the petitioner who achieved the better position and was ap pointed on regular post in the department was entitled to the better treatment, as Article 16 (1) of the Constitution provides and guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter relating to the employments or appointments to any of fice under the State. It seems highly un reasonable and unfair to say that since the petitioner was holding a permanent post of the same cadre on the regular basis in the establishment, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion with the per sons who were not even the members of establishment and were working as work charged employees. 22. It is also not correct to say that since there was no channel of promotion from the post of Town Incharge therefore the petitioner was not considered for promotion. From the order dated 18-9-1979 (Annexure-CA-3) it is evident that promotion of the other similarly situated persons was not made in accordance with the provisions contained for promotion in the relevant regulations i. e. the U. R State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the regulations. The promotions of other similarly situated persons appear to have been made only in exercise of powers conferred upon the Board under Regula tion 31 which provides for relaxation of the provisions contained in regulations. The promotions of other similarly situated persons appear to have been made only in exercise of powers conferred upon the Board under Regula tion 31 which provides for relaxation of the provisions contained in regulations. It has also not been shown or even alleged that there existed any channel of promo tion for the persons working on the work charged side that too by superseding and by-passing the claim of the regular employees. Regulation 31 referred to above does not authorise the State/board to act arbitrarily, or unreasonably; on the other hand it requires Board to act justly and equitably otherwise its actions will be hit by the Articles 14 and 16 of the Con stitution of India. 23. It appears that the regulations were framed by the U. P. State Electricity Board in exercise of powers under Section 79 (C) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. By means of the said regulations the U. P. State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service came into being. The regulations provide for strength of service, sources of recruitment, mode of recruitment, train ing of apprentice supervisors, selection and appointment of ordinary and selec tion grade by promotion etc. For the pur pose of the present case the provisions of Regulations 5, 17,18 and 31 are relevant, which are being quoted below:- "5. Sources of recruitment.-Recruitment to the cadres of the Service shall be made as follows: (a) Selection Grade: By promotion from amongst the members of the Ordinary Grade in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 16. (b) Ordinary Grade: (i) By direct recruitment from Apprentice Supervisors selected in accordance with the pro cedure laid down in Part V of these Regulations. (ii) By promotion in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulations 17 and 18. 17. (b) Ordinary Grade: (i) By direct recruitment from Apprentice Supervisors selected in accordance with the pro cedure laid down in Part V of these Regulations. (ii) By promotion in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulations 17 and 18. 17. Selection for appointment to the Ordi nary Grade by promotion- (1) For purpose of recruitment to the posts in the Ordinary Grade under Regulations 5 (b) (ii) a selection based on merit shall be made from the following: * (a) Members of Operating Staff (Skilled) who have put in 3 years or more of continuous service including service rendered on work-charged establishment, if they have passed any of the examinations mentioned in Appendix a or 4 years or more of service, if they have passed I. T. I. Examination or 5 years or more of service, if they have passed High School Examination or 10 years or more of service, if they have not passed High School Examination. (b) Unqualified work-charged Super visors and Asstt. Supervisors and unqualified Ex-cadre Supervisors who have put in 4 years or more of continuous service, if I. T. I, passed, 5 years or more of service, if High School passed or 7 years or more of service, if not High School passed. (c) Assistant Supervisors (Regular) having I. T. I. Certificate or Diploma who have put in 3 years or more of continuous service. (2) The selection shall be based on a writ ten test followed by a practical and oral test to which only such candidates would be admitted as have qualified in the written test. (3) The names of the candidates who qualify in the practical and oral test shall be placed in a list in their order of merit. For com puting the merit of a candidate the marks ob tained by him both in the written test and the practical and oral test shall be added. (4) The number of names in the list drawn up under clause (3) shall not exceed the number of vacancies announced at the time of the an nouncement of the examination by more than 25%. (5) The syllabus for the written test and the practical and oral test shall be laid down by the Chief Engineer from time to time. (4) The number of names in the list drawn up under clause (3) shall not exceed the number of vacancies announced at the time of the an nouncement of the examination by more than 25%. (5) The syllabus for the written test and the practical and oral test shall be laid down by the Chief Engineer from time to time. (6) A Committee comprising the follow ing will supervise the written examinations and held the practical and oral test: (i) Additional Chief Engineer/deputy Chief Engineer to be nominated by Chief En gineer. (ii) One Superintending Engineer to be nominated by Chief Engineer. (iii) An officer of the Board not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to be nominated by the Chairman. (7) The Chief Engineer shall have the power to remove the name of any candidate from the list drawn up under clause (3) if his work or conduct at any time subsequent to the holding of the tests is reported to be such as to render him unfit for promotion. 18. Appointment to the ordinary Grade by promotion: (1) Appointment to the Ordinary Grade by promotion shall be made from the list drawn up under Regulation 17 (3) in strict order of merit. (2) Appointments of the candidates of any subsequent selection shall be made only after all the candidates of an earlier selection whose names have been included in the list drawn up under Regulation 17 (3) have been promoted: Provided that nothing in the sub-regula tion shall be deemed to make eligible for promo tion a candidate whose name has been removed from the list under clause 17 (7 ). 31. Relaxation (1) Nothing in these regulations shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Board to deal with the case of any person or class of persons governed by these regulations in such manner as may appear to the Board to be just and equitable: Provided that, where any of the foregoing regulations is applicable to the case of any per sons or class or persons, the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable to him or to that class than that Provided by that regula tion. (2) When in the opinion of the Board it appears necessary to do so, the Board may make any appointment or appointments to the Service in relaxation of these Regulations and in the case of any such appointment which is not in strict accordance with these Regulations, the Board shall be deemed to have made the appointment in relaxation of these regulations. " Clause (a) of Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 17 was subsequently amended vide Boards order dated 4- 1-1973. The amended clause provides as under:- " (a) Members of operating Staff (Skilled) who have put in 3 years or more of continuous service including service rendered on work charged establishment if they have passed any of the examinations mentioned in Appendix-a or two years or more of service, if they have passed I. T. I. Examination or 5 years or more of Service, or 10 years or more of Service, if they have not passed High School Examination. " The regulations were further amended vide Boards order dated 28-11-1973 to the extent as follows:- "the existing words "supervisor/s" wherever used in Regulations substituted by the words "junior Engineer/s. " The joint reading of Regulations 5 (b) (ii) and 17 (1) (a) clearly makes out that the members of the operating staff (skilled) who have put in 3 years or more continuous service including service rendered on work charged establishment, if they have passed any of the examinations mentioned in Appendix A or 2 years or more service, if they have passed I. T. I. Ex amination or 5 years or more service, if they have passed High School Examina tion or 10 years or more service, if they have not passed High School Examina tion, were entitled to be considered for promotion. 24. It is not disputed that the petitioner and the other persons who have already been promoted to the post of Junior Engineer, were the members of the operating staff (skilled ). Petitioner has been working in the department since 1963 continuously. He has also passed High School, Intermediate and I. T. I. Ex aminations. Therefore, under the said rules he was entitled to be considered for promotion. A reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) Rajasthan Stale Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal and others, AIR 1967 SC 1857 . He has also passed High School, Intermediate and I. T. I. Ex aminations. Therefore, under the said rules he was entitled to be considered for promotion. A reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) Rajasthan Stale Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal and others, AIR 1967 SC 1857 . (ii) Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India andanother, AIR 1967 SC 1889 . 25. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board case (supra) Honble the Supreme Court was pleased to rule as under:- ". . . . . . . Since the Board did not frame any new grades or new service conditions, it is clear that respondent No. 1 as well as respondents No. 4 to 14 continued to be governed by the old grades and service conditions applicable to them when they were servants of the State Govern ment in the Electrical and Mechanical depart ment where they were all serving as Foremen. All of them being governed by identical rules, it is clear that respondent No. 1 was entitled to be considered for promotion under the Board on the basis of equality with respondents No. 4 to 14. " 26. Similarly in Roshan Lal Tandons case (supra), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court as under:- "at the time when the petitioner and the direct recruits were appointed to Grade d, there was one class in Grade D formed of direct recruits and the promotees from the grade of artisans. The recruits from both the sources to Grade d were integrated into one class and no discrimination could thereafter be made in favour of recruits from the source as against the recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade c. To put it differently, once the direct recruits and promotees are ab sorbed in one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade c. " Facts of the present case are much better than the facts of aforesaid case inas much as here petitioner and other persons mentioned in paragraph No. 16 were recruited to the same class and continued in the same class till said persons were promoted as Junior Engineers without considering the claim of petitioner for promotion. 27. 27. The respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 18-9-1979 (Annexure-CA-3 to the counter-affidavit) in the exercise of alleged powers under Regulation 31 firstly constituted a selection committee for holding written examination and the inter view for promoting the employees to the post of Junior Engineers as in its opinion there remained no justification for con tinuing the Assistant Supervisors in ser vice. Subsequently, vide order dated 1-10-1980 (Annexure-3 Second Part) it gave up the idea of holding the examination and interview and directed only for screening the service records of the Assistant Super visors and directed the process to go on that till each one of them was absorbed in service. There was apparently no justifica tion for the Board for completely ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, particular ly when the other employees named in paragraphs No. 8 read with (Annexure-3), 16, 21, 28 and 29 of the writ petition, who were inferior and junior to the petitioner, were considered and protected as Junior Engineers. 28. In the regulations there is no provision for the post of Town Incharge and the apprentice Supervisors as are en visaged in the Regulations have been re-designated as apprentice Junior En gineers, as stated above. The petitioner being recruited as the Assistant Super visor and subsequently was allegedly promoted to the post of Town Incharge, his case was fully covered by the Regula tion 5 read with Regulations 17 and 18. He was, therefore, entitled to be considered for promotion Jo the post of Junior En gineer. 29. It is not disputed that the-petitioner has worked as Junior Engineer in 1973 onward and has been continuously working and is holding the post of Junior Engineer since 1986; but he is not being paid his salary in the pay scale admissible to the Junior Engineer, which is apparent ly discriminatory, unjust, unfair and illegal on the part of the respondent No. 1. 30. So far as the plea of laches raised by the learned Counsel for the respon dents is concerned, it is not disputed that the petitioner vide his representation, when he was allegedly promoted to the post of Town Incharge, prayed that he should be appointed and designated as Assistant Supervisor as the said post car ried more pay than the pay admissible to the alleged promotional post. The said representation was favourably recom mended by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandpur; but till date no decision has been taken on the same. Similarly, when other work charged Assistant Supervisors were promoted to the post of Junior En gineers the petitioner filed a repre sentation for redressal of the grievances and also claimed his pi emotion to the post of Junior Engineer; but the said repre sentation was paid no heed by the con cerned authorities inspite of requests and reminders made by the petitioner and till date the same has not been decided and the same is also admittedly pending dis posal. Further the cause of action for filing the present petition is apparently recur ring and continuous as the petitioner is continuously suffering financial loss. Therefore, in my opinion no question of delay or laches on the part of the petitioner is at all involved. The argument made by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the contrary is not accept able to me. 31. It may be noted that the petitioner has simply prayed for his promotion and did not challenge the promotion of anybody. He is already work ing as Junior Engineer since 1973, there fore, if his services as Junior Engineer are regularised, nobody shall suffer any loss. 32. As the action of the respondents in completely ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer was wholly arbitrary, dis criminatory, unfair and violative to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has been working and discharging his duties as Junior Engineer since 1973, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Engineer, atleast with effect from the date the other similarly situated per sons, rather inferior to him in merit and seniority in service have been promoted with all consequential benefits. 33. Admittedly, the petitioner has been continuously working and holding the post of Junior Engineer at Chandpur, district Bijnor, since, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to ap point Shri R. C. Sharma, respondent No. 6 as Junior Engineer and direct the petitioner to handover the charge to him. and to look after the work of cash collec tion only. The said orders arc wholly il legal and without jurisdiction. They are also liable to be quashed. 34. and to look after the work of cash collec tion only. The said orders arc wholly il legal and without jurisdiction. They are also liable to be quashed. 34. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and by means of a writ of mandamus the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as Junior Engineer from the date the persons inferior and junior to him, such as Prem Manohar Jain and others, have been promoted to the posts of Junior Engineers, with all conse quential benefits in the matter of service. The orders dated 2-7-1993 and 5-7-1993, contained in Annexures 10 to 12 to the writ petition are also quashed. Petition allowed. .