Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. Appellants/petitioners who were working as Workshop Instruction in the Technical Education Department applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the Motor Vehicle Department pursuant to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. They got selection and consequently, they gave up their original post of Workshop Inspectors in the Technical Education Department and joined the new post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors (AMVI) in the Motor Vehicle Department. That was in the year 1999. At that time, they had to their credit almost eight years of service in the former department. Their contention is that the scale of pay applicable to both these posts were identical. On that account, they placed reliance on Ext.P1 order passed by the Government of Kerala as per order No.G.O.(P).705/81/(372) Fin. Dt.28.10.1981 to get higher grade promotion in the cadre of AMVI counting the service they had in the category of Workshop Instructor. Counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that their service in the Technical Education Department shall have to be added on to the service in Motor Vehicles Department to grant time bound higher grade in the category of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. 2. The time stipulated for grant of higher grade was 13 years at that time. This 13 years have been liberalized to 10 years with effect from 16.9.1985 when Annexure-D pay revision order was issued. Therefore, their contention is that just before completing one year in the new post, they shall be given the higher grade applicable to that post. 3. This contention was resisted by Government contending that Ext.P1 order had been superseded by the scheme contained in the pay revision order dt.16.9.1985 in Annexure-D whereby the new scheme had been introduced. From that day onwards Ext.P1 has no relevance. 4. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention and dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this writ appeal. The contentions advanced before the learned Single Judge re-agitated before us. The trump card again shown is Ext.P1. 5. True, Ext.P1 provides that the service put in one department can be taken for the computation of 13 years for the purpose of granting time bound higher grade on getting appointment in another department, provided the incumbent holds the post with identical scale of pay. This order has been issued on 28.10.1981 to be effective from 1.7.1979. 5. True, Ext.P1 provides that the service put in one department can be taken for the computation of 13 years for the purpose of granting time bound higher grade on getting appointment in another department, provided the incumbent holds the post with identical scale of pay. This order has been issued on 28.10.1981 to be effective from 1.7.1979. Later, the matter engaged the attention of the Fourth pay Commission appointed by the Government of Kerala. Accepting recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, Government issued Annexure-D order G.O.(P).515/85/Fin. Dt.16.9.1985. Paragraph No.10 thereof deals with time bound higher grade promotions. The said order reveals that after reviewing the existing scheme of time bound/non-cadre promotion, the Pay Commission had made certain recommendation and the Government had accepted those recommendations and ordered that “Employees in the revised scales of pay ranging from Rs.550-800 to Rs.1150-2270 will be allowed promotion to higher grade in completion of 10 years of service and a second higher grade after either 10 years of service in the first higher grade or a total service of 20 years in the two grades together, whichever is earlier”. Further procedural guidelines are also given in Paragraph No.10. Going by this, there was liberalization of scheme reducing the period for granting time bound higher grade from 13 years to 10 years and introduced yet another second time bound higher grade on completion of 20 years and a further higher grade on completion of 25 years or 23 years, as the case may be, as ordered in sub-paragraph No.5 of paragraph No.10 of Annexure-D. This liberalized scheme took effect from 15.9.1985. From that day onwards, Ext.P1 did not have any relevance because it was reviewing those orders. Annexure-D was issued mere reference to Ext.P1 in a later order wherein all the orders of grade promotion had been tabulated, will not make that scheme modified. Necessarily, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Ext.P1 has no relevance in respect of those like the appellants/petitioners who joined service in the new department after the introduction of the new scheme in Annexure-D is totally justified and does not call for interference. 6. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted, it will defeat the very object behind introduction of time bound hither grade. 6. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted, it will defeat the very object behind introduction of time bound hither grade. Time bound higher grade is introduced as the incumbents in service do not get a regular promotion for a longer span of time. Therefore, the Government issued orders that on completion of certain period of service the incumbents stagnating in one grade shall get next year higher grade but without change in duties. One had to stagnate in one post in which he had appointed for a minimum period. Then alone, he will get such time bound higher grade. Admittedly, the appellants came to be appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors only in December, 1999. They had not stagnated in that post. They have completed even on today only about seven years. Therefore, they are not entitled to the time bound higher grade. 7. There would be yet another adverse repercussions in the entire service if this contention is accepted. They have been appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors along with certain others. Naturally there will be some incumbents who are seniors to the appellants; but did not have any service in any other department. If the prayer of the appellant is accepted they may be placed in a grade higher than their seniors merely because of the fortuitous reasons of the appellants/petitioners did have opportunity of being appointed in another department. That will necessarily work out heart burn to such seniors. 8. True, as contented by the Counsel, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Dwijen Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India (AIR 1999 SC (1) 598) that the time bound higher grade will not affect the seniority even if it is granted reckoning the past service. But such a situation does not arise in this case which is governed by a special scheme covered by Annexure-D order. The entitlement has to be government by that scheme and the orders issued in modification thereof later. Therefore, we see nothing for interference in this appeal. 9. Writ appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.